Slain Officer's Widow Sues Gun Store

[LaoSexMachine]

Slain Officer's Widow Sues Gun Store

By Elizabeth Scarborough

POSTED: 6:29 am CST November 14, 2008
HOUSTON -- The widow of a slain Houston police officer has filed a lawsuit against the store that sold the murder weapon, KPRC Local 2 reports.It's been two years since Officer Rodney Johnson was killed while making a traffic stop."The pain is always there. It is easier as time goes on," widow Joslyn Johnson said.Juan Quintero, a Mexican citizen, was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison for shooting Johnson in the head while sitting in the back seat of the officer's patrol car."This man was a child molester. He'd been deported. He shouldn't have been in possession of a gun," said Johnson.

Johnson is suing Carter's Country, the gun shop where her attorney said Quintero got his weapon."He went to the store with another person, pointed out the gun he wanted and the other person bought it for him. It was illegal for the store to sell the gun in those circumstances," attorney Ben Dominguez said."I want the gun industry to be aware you have to be careful," said Johnson. "You can't just sell guns to felons."Johnson said she doesn't want to take away people's right to bear arms."I do believe in the second amendment right to carry weapon and bear arms for personal protection, but this was not for protection," she said.


Carter's Country lawyers refused to comment on the lawsuit or the allegations against the store.Some customers said the store should not be to blame."I think the person who shot the guy should be held responsible for his death," customer Jacobi Jones said.The lawsuit asks for damages that resulted from Johnson's death, including lost wages and mental anguish.

http://www.click2houston.com/newsarchive/17978807/detail.html

Straw purchases are hard to detect. I don't blame the gun store either. Doesn't say anything about the person who bought him the gun. I feel for her but blaming the gunstore is wrong. Seems wrong to say it but he should of done a thorough pat down on Quintero.

[phigment]

It's sort of iffy. If they can prove that the store owner knew it was a straw man purchase I'm definitely in support of any legal action taken against them. I'd still be going after the person who made the purchase though.

[Zoomie]

Just reading that article raises several questions like why isn't she going after the guy who really bought the gun, and secondly, how did Quintero manage to:
1. Have a gun in the back seat in a cop car
2. Be able to shoot the said gun

Sadly, it sounds like the officer failed to search and secure the suspect when he put him in the back seat.

[LineDoggie]

RIP to the Officer, but I'm still trying to figure out how a Handcuffed suspect was able to draw and use a gun in the back of a squadcar? Granted there's probably a lot more here we dont know.


I would say if they can prove this was a Strawman Purchase, they should go for the max legally against the owners.

Not a Lawyer, but it would have had to have violated Numerous federal laws as well, no?

I'd wager the local ATF is looking at this by now

[jtv3062]

This sounds like the LAPD officer who left his gun in the back seat of his car, when his child shot his dad in the back and is now suing Glock. He did not do his job in disarming the perp. The gun store did wrong also.

[tea drinker]

.....Some customers said the store should not be to blame."I think the person who shot the guy should be held responsible for his death," customer Jacobi Jones said.The lawsuit asks for damages that resulted from Johnson's death, including lost wages and mental anguish.
How will the shooter repay the damages to the family? Even if the officer is negligent that is no get out for the shooter.

Sad news for the officers family - a pretty big punishment for that fvck up - and who knows what the circumstances were...

The store has a duty to ensure sale to citizens in good standing - but there is no evidence they sold the gun to a felon - sure it ended up with a felon.

[brainplay]

The officer in question did an improper search which led to his murder. Sometimes guys are just going to fall into a rut and let their guards down. In this case it was a lethal result.

As to the case, they're going to have to prove that the guy who did purchase the gun did do a strawman purchase and that the store owners did in fact know what was going to happen. Thats a tall order to prove and I doubt it will go through. Entire case is going to revolve around the guy who made the purchase and his/her credibility as a witness. She might be hoping to get a settlement out of court if she's lucky.

Strawman purchases are already a really big NO NO.

[Andrew Chalmers]

Did the store have a duty to not sell firearms to felons? Yes.

Did the store owner breach that duty? Hard to say.

Was the owner's alleged breach the proximate cause of the officers' death? No.

I think this is a frivolous lawsuit.

[Hot Lips]

She's not just suing the gun shop for allegedly conducting a straw purchase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_purchase) transaction by allowing the shooters wife to fill out the paperwork for a gun he had shopped around the store for (he was previously convicted of indecency with a child and deported thereby making him ineligible to purchase firearms).

But, she is also suing the city (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6113486.html) in the hopes of changing it's policy of one officer per patrol car as a safety measure in lieu of monetary damages.

The third lawsuit is against the shooters former employer, Robert Lane Camp, for allegedly helping the shooter get back into the US after he was deported and then harboring him stateside.

She's addressing illegal immigration issues, gun control, and job safety measures for police officers. I don't think any of those issues are frivolous.

The police officer may not have done a thorough search, but then again this guy wasn't supposed to be in the United States and certainly no one should have been allowing him to shop for firearms and then have his wife to fill out the paperwork to push the sale through.

[California Joe]

Thanks for doing the research and actually using the correct term for the type of purchase HL.

Sounds like the widow is really pissed off and she doesn't think putting some stickers on her car will fix anything. Also sounds like there was a considerable amount of stupidity involved in this guy even being allowed in the country, let alone getting a gun.

[LaoSexMachine]

To add to this. I have bought several firearms from Carter's and the people there are professional and very by the book.

[Hot Lips]

How often do you shop with illegal immigrant *** offenders who can't buy their own weapons? ;) Prosecution has the shooters video taped confession to the police - detailing the shooting and purchase of the gun, the paperwork filled out by the wife, etc. I don't think they would have filed if they didn't think they could make a reasonable case against the store for negligence in the sale. The store could lose it's license over this.


Another quote from the victims widow..


"I do believe in the second amendment right to carry weapon and bear arms for personal protection, but this was not for protection," she said. ... "I want the gun industry to be aware you have to be careful," said Johnson. "You can't just sell guns to felons."

[LaoSexMachine]

I'm not saying they did or didn't just my experience. Besides people will say anything to save their skin. Filling out paper work and buying is one thin. Telling the clerk you are buying it some the person next to you is another. How would the clerk know? Unless she came out and said it.

[Happy]

She's not just suing the gun shop for allegedly conducting a straw purchase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_purchase) transaction by allowing the shooters wife to fill out the paperwork for a gun he had shopped around the store for (he was previously convicted of indecency with a child and deported thereby making him ineligible to purchase firearms).

But, she is also suing the city (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6113486.html) in the hopes of changing it's policy of one officer per patrol car as a safety measure in lieu of monetary damages.

The third lawsuit is against the shooters former employer, Robert Lane Camp, for allegedly helping the shooter get back into the US after he was deported and then harboring him stateside.

She's addressing illegal immigration issues, gun control, and job safety measures for police officers. I don't think any of those issues are frivolous.

The police officer may not have done a thorough search, but then again this guy wasn't supposed to be in the United States and certainly no one should have been allowing him to shop for firearms and then have his wife to fill out the paperwork to push the sale through.

She is sue happy, and is naming every single person or thing that could possibly have insurance, and hoping for the cash. I feel for her loss, and I hate the idea of a cop being killed, but the killer is really responsible here, all other actions past his conviction is a hope to win the free money lottery.

[Policía Loco]

She is sue happy, and is naming every single person or thing that could possibly have insurance, and hoping for the cash. I feel for her loss, and I hate the idea of a cop being killed, but the killer is really responsible here, all other actions past his conviction is a hope to win the free money lottery.

Lawsuits aren't always about money. They achieve things that sometimes criminal law fails at.

That being said, the subject that bought the gun should be tried and convicted of murder also. Regardless of what the intention of the purchase was, it is the buyer's(owner's) responsibility to keep it secure at all times.

The gun dealer will definately lose his license and most likely face prison.

[DreadNaught]

I hope the wife dies even starting this because first off suing the retailer of this gun store means people should be able to sue supermarkets, gas stations, and dealerships for selling products that have killed people. plus i did see anything in there about the guy that sold the firearm knowing the guy that wanted it was a convicted criminal, which means she should stop going at the store and go after the shooter.

[Andrew Chalmers]

I hope the wife dies even starting this because first off suing the retailer of this gun store means people should be able to sue supermarkets, gas stations, and dealerships for selling products that have killed people. plus i did see anything in there about the guy that sold the firearm knowing the guy that wanted it was a convicted criminal, which means she should stop going at the store and go after the shooter.

:roll: Hey gameboy you're not going to last very long with that sort of attitude.

[Andrew Chalmers]

The third lawsuit is against the shooters former employer, Robert Lane Camp, for allegedly helping the shooter get back into the US after he was deported and then harboring him stateside.

The police officer may not have done a thorough search, but then again this guy wasn't supposed to be in the United States and certainly no one should have been allowing him to shop for firearms and then have his wife to fill out the paperwork to push the sale through.

Why I sympathize with her personal grief - unfortunately, private citizens do not have standing to sue individuals for violation of immigration law. This was an intentional tort... unless the individual had made it pretty clear he was going to shoot police officers, the former employer is not his brother's keeper.

I hope her lawyer is working on a contingent basis or for free...

[LaoSexMachine]

I hope the wife dies even starting this because first off suing the retailer of this gun store means people should be able to sue supermarkets, gas stations, and dealerships for selling products that have killed people. plus i did see anything in there about the guy that sold the firearm knowing the guy that wanted it was a convicted criminal, which means she should stop going at the store and go after the shooter.

You should choke yourself you little shyt. Seriously.

[California Joe]

He's going to take a break. I haven't decided whether or not to make it permanent. Stupid little f*ck.

[Hot Lips]

She is sue happy, and is naming every single person or thing that could possibly have insurance, and hoping for the cash.

What part of "in lieu of monetary damages" do you not comprehend?

She's asking the city to amend it's practices to improve safety on the job for police officers.

If the gun shop violated federal law just to get a sale - they deserve to lose their license.

If the shooters employers helped him into the country illegally, hired him illegally, and harbored him illegally - he deserves to get in trouble for that.

Money doesn't seem to be her motive from what I've read, but rather using her lawsuits to shine a light on people and circumstances that did ultimately play a role in her husbands death.


I hope the wife dies even starting this because first off suing the retailer of this gun store means people should be able to sue supermarkets...

You're simply stuck on stupid and I hope you don't survive long at MP.net.

EDIT: Kudos CJ.

[phigment]

I hope the wife dies even starting this because first off suing the retailer of this gun store means people should be able to sue supermarkets, gas stations, and dealerships for selling products that have killed people.
Except that there aren't federal laws against supermarkets and gas stations selling their products to illegal aliens and convicted felons. So if she can prove they knew it was a straw purchase (thanks for the correct term HL) then she's perfectly right in suing the retailer - Which everyone has already said.

[deagle]

someone should be held accountable. we should have the right to arms, but we should regulate it more responsibly.

[LineDoggie]

someone should be held accountable. we should have the right to arms, but we should regulate it more responsibly.

Well, the last time I went to a Gun Store to buy a Rifle, I had to fill out a 4473 and await an Instant Check that goes through the FBI to say I wasnt an Insurgent or Criminal, etc. It's not like you walk in and out in 2 minutes, took about 30 minutes waiting. I'm quite sure for Handguns theres even more locally.

[Calanen]

If the gun shop violated federal law just to get a sale - they deserve to lose their license.


I would agree if it was the owner who did it or directed it be done, but not if it was just an employee. Bit rough to put a man out of business because one of his employees is a knucklehead. Then nearly every business in the country would need to shut down. If that was the test for my own business, I would have been bankrupted many times over.

[Hollis]

I would agree if it was the owner who did it or directed it be done, but not if it was just an employee. Bit rough to put a man out of business because one of his employees is a knucklehead. Then nearly every business in the country would need to shut down. If that was the test for my own business, I would have been bankrupted many times over.


I think there may be more to this. If a person can legally buy a firearm and does, how is that the Store owner problem. If the straw purchaser had bough a large number of firearm or it was obvious that it was for another person, I can see something happening. If two people walk into a store and one wants to buy a firearm, it is not required that both parties fill out the forms and have back ground checks run.

Terrible situation, my sympathy goes with the widow. I guess we will know more later.

[Calanen]

I think there may be more to this. If a person can legally buy a firearm and does, how is that the Store owner problem. If the straw purchaser had bough a large number of firearm or it was obvious that it was for another person, I can see something happening. If two people walk into a store and one wants to buy a firearm, it is not required that both parties fill out the forms and have back ground checks run.

Terrible situation, my sympathy goes with the widow. I guess we will know more later.

That's true Hollis, the fact that two people go into a gun store and one person buys guns while another observes is no ground for suit. They are going to have to prove some sort of knowledge on behalf of the owner, or, recklessness.

[tea drinker]

As far as I know, there is no gun related law prohibiting a child molestor from giving his wife advice on a gun purchase - he is within his rights to advise her on personal protection. The store would have no legal basis to intervene, if it did it would then be open to a legitimate legal claim. The store only have legal obligation to check the purchasers status and anyone offering advice is exempt.

I understand the widow is very angry - and I hope she can help avoid situations like this occouring in the future, she may get some solace from that.

[Laconian]

To prove the straw purchase she will need to show that the employee knew or should have known that the wife was lying and buying. You go walking around the store pointing out/handling weapons and when it comes paper/payment time the other person steps up, that's a pretty good sign something is amiss.

Part of the investigation will be an interview of the owner to see what is common practice in the store related to a sale, then an interview of the employee that sold the gun to see if he was in keeping with store policy. If the employee violated policy that may add credence to her case. This is a civil suit so the level of proof required is only a preponderance of the evidence.

More than likely, if straw purchases are a rarity in this store the owner won't lose his FFL, but the employee might lose his job.

18 USC 922 a 6 makes it illegal to furnish false or fictitious statements in relation to a firearms purchase (lying and buying/straw purchase). 18 USC 922d prohibits any person from transferring a firearm to someone they know or has reasonable cause to know is a prohibited person. All are Federal felonies. So in reality the wife can be guilty of a couple of felonies, as is her husband and possibly the employee/seller of the actual gun.

[Will Clark]

How often do you shop with illegal immigrant *** offenders who can't buy their own weapons? ;) Prosecution has the shooters video taped confession to the police - detailing the shooting and purchase of the gun, the paperwork filled out by the wife, etc. I don't think they would have filed if they didn't think they could make a reasonable case against the store for negligence in the sale. The store could lose it's license over this.


How often does a gun shop do a background check on anyone who stands around their store to figure out whether they're an illegal immigrant *** offender or not? Never, that's how often. I personally tend not to believe illegal immigrant *** offender cop killers, but I also don't doubt that the company may have screwed up. I've bought a rifle from that Carters aswell, and I didn't notice anything sketchy. If some mexican starts telling his wife what pistol he wants in spanish I'll be none the wiser. If he points at it he could be advising her for all I know, I'm not sure what federal guidelines say about denying sales based on suspicion. All I'm saying is that there are numerous explanations for this bad sale that don't lead to a sinister employee turning the other cheek after he discovers their plot of making a straw purchase. So why don't we give them the benefit of the doubt?

[Hot Lips]

They will get the benefit of the doubt by way of the investigation underway and trial if deemed appropriate.

[BugHunt]

Sounds alot like a gutsey woman making a principled and balanced stand...

Heck shes still pro gun ownership - i dont see what all the cranks are going on about.



Even if she doesnt win her case at least shell give those involved in the chain of fail pause for thought...