Reply With QuoteSo the criminal stole his gun and he is at fault. Amazing....
Gun owner may be held financially liable for murder committed with his stolen gun
So the criminal stole his gun and he is at fault. Amazing....
so if someone steals your car and runs someone over, you are liable????
Not from where I come from.Originally Posted by cbreedon
Dumb bitch.
This is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal one.
In civil law, the laws of causality go much further than in criminal law, where only a given set of criminal offenses are punishable.
In civil law, if you cause damages you have to pay compensation.
This has nothing to do with gun laws and whatsoever.
Whom are you talking about?
The woman who thought to take out her grief on a random person for no reason.
He didn't have contact with the murder for 14 years and that guy broke into his cabin found the gun and killed someone. That is retarded to say the owner is liable. What about break ins at National Guard armories that have multiple assault rifles stolen. Who is liable if those weapons are stolen and used in a murder? (has happened more that one occasion).
If a laywer at a civil lawsuit might want to sue the state for damages and can prove in a court of law that security measures in the armory were lacking, he might win.
What would constitute proper security? The armories that I am aware of have the rifles in racks with a bar locking them in place. Should the locks be made of kryptonite?
That's why they sue everyone and see what sticks. Another reason liability insurance costs as much as it does.What would constitute proper security? The armories that I am aware of have the rifles in racks with a bar locking them in place. Should the locks be made of kryptonite?
As far as I know it, US law demands every reasonable precaution, which might include locks, armed patrols etc.What would constitute proper security? The armories that I am aware of have the rifles in racks with a bar locking them in place. Should the locks be made of kryptonite?
But most military armories should well qualify for reasonable precautions I guess
Generally this depends on the skills of the laywer and if the judge has any idea of the subject or not
This is the reason why I usually don't like the people who practice law. They and their commonsense is so far from reality that I think they commute from a different galaxy. Say that I have a Japanese rock garden in my backyard, a perp steals a stone and uses it to kill someone. Now I'm responsible, because I didn't secure the stone well enough!?!?As far as I know it, US law demands every reasonable precaution, which might include locks, armed patrols etc.
But most military armories should well qualify for reasonable precautions I guess
Generally this depends on the skills of the laywer and if the judge has any idea of the subject or not
Did they have a Trunk Monkey hidden in the room? No Trunk Monkey ??? NEGLIGENCE !!! Lawsuit, payoff, WIN!What would constitute proper security? The armories that I am aware of have the rifles in racks with a bar locking them in place. Should the locks be made of kryptonite?
Posting Permissions
