1
   

"Mom sues Wal-Mart over daughter's suicide"

 
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 06:59 pm
Not only can you buy a gun(s) pretty much anywhere and still be a loony-tune, you can also get a drivers license. Now that'e pretty freankin' scary.(I own guns and I drive) be afraid.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 07:01 pm
It's just a little thing we like to call freedom. Since there are already more guns than people (a lot more) in this country, further restriction would only restrict law-abiding citizens. The guys you really don't want to have the guns still would. Believe that. One would have to friendless as well as penniless to not be able to get a gun here, regardless of any new legislation. Don't believe me? Marijuana is illegal. Think that matters?
Heeere:http://www.mainzelahr.de/smile/cool/kos.gif
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 07:31 pm
it aint' got nothing to do with freedom. quite contrary, but that would belong to philosophy and debate forum. trust me, i'd rather have marijuana legalized than guns. though i don't do either.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 07:35 pm
Nor do I, actually. I only brought it up to demonstrate the futility in passing legislation that people don't agree with. The guns aren't going away, and Wal-Mart most certainly has nothing to do with any problems that stem from them.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 07:39 pm
of course, changing legislation is not enough. but it is still important. if it weren't why the heck bother having laws against murder or theft? people are still going to kill and steal - same analogy...
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 07:42 pm
dagmaraka wrote:
... i'd rather have marijuana legalized than guns. though i don't do either.


I wish I could say the same thing, dag, but I can't. On a typical Saturday evening you'll find me driving around the backroads, smoking pot and shooting my shotgun randomly out the window.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 07:43 pm
thankgod you are blind!
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 07:51 pm
Hey, Dag, I like that fire thingamajig burning behind your avatar. Jpin's work?

I'm gonna have to talk to that boy and see if he can create a capybara orgy behind my image.

Wouldn't that be exciting to see all those rotund rodents twisting and turning in a romantic frenzy?

I'm gonna call Jpin right now.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 07:51 pm
dagmaraka wrote:
of course, changing legislation is not enough. but it is still important. if it weren't why the heck bother having laws against murder or theft? people are still going to kill and steal - same analogy...
No, I don't think so. Killing and stealing are universally looked at as wrong... usually even by those who do it I would think. Doesn't that separate it from activities that a large portion of the population doesn't see as wrong? (You're probably right about this belonging on another thread. Embarrassed )
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 09:57 pm
sure there is a difference in degree. but i will not agree that legislation is futile. 'nuf said, there probably is a threat about gun control somewhere anyway.
gus, the capybara orgy would look mightily handsome behind you. jpin will be most excited to design one, i am sure.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 10:30 pm
A thread about gun control, Dag? If you ask, I'll look it up, but there was one preempted by Thomas and joefromchicago going on recently. It might be the finest a2k debate on any topic I've ever seen, though there were several lesser pages before their involvement.

You earlier questioned the girls ability to receive a permit. You should know that state laws vary widely. No permit, for example, is required for purchase or unconcealed carry in the state of New Mexico.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Dec, 2004 08:41 am
no permit? you mean absolutely anyone can buy a gun in New Mexico?
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Dec, 2004 09:02 am
No, I mean anyone who can meet the federal standards - not convicted felon, not mentally ill, nor drug user, etc.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Dec, 2004 09:37 am
Re: "Mom sues Wal-Mart over daughter's suicide"
Sorry to bring this back to the original question...

fishin' wrote:
Is there any real legal basis for this suit or is this just a distraught mother lashing out in pain over her daughter's death?

I have no idea. I can't find the complaint on-line, so I don't know what the mother's legal theory might be, and I won't speculate on the merits of a lawsuit when the only details I have are provided by a news service (which, in my experience, are not entirely reliable when it comes to legal matters).

In general, a plaintiff in a case like this must establish some sort of duty owed by the defendant (Wal-Mart) to the plaintiff (the mother, as representative of her deceased daughter). I'm not sure what that duty could be, but it's possible that Wal-Mart affirmatively did something that established a duty on its part. I can think of any number of hypotheticals in which Wal-Mart could be held liable for the young woman's suicide; without more facts, however, any conclusions would be merely idle speculation.

Roger: thanks for the kind words regarding my participation in the discussion with Thomas. I'm just glad when anyone reads my posts; if someone learns something, well, that's just gravy.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Dec, 2004 11:47 am
Re: "Mom sues Wal-Mart over daughter's suicide"
joefromchicago wrote:
I have no idea. I can't find the complaint on-line, so I don't know what the mother's legal theory might be, and I won't speculate on the merits of a lawsuit when the only details I have are provided by a news service (which, in my experience, are not entirely reliable when it comes to legal matters).


Yeah, I'd agree that this is all speculation at this point but from what we have gleened the mother's theory appears to be that Walmart didn't exercise proper care by doing a more extensive background check than the law requires. I caught her lawyer on TV this morning and he is claiming that the Walmart sporting goods clerk should have checked their pharmacy database for any clues that this girl might have mental/emotional problems. Walmart is prohibited from doing that by TX state law.

In effect, the case seems to be a suit against Walmart for not voilating a law. I wonder if I can sue people I see on the higway for not speeding? Can I be arrested for not embezzling millions from my employer? Razz
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Dec, 2004 12:07 pm
I think if the crazy girl had burned herself by spilling hot coffee just before purchasing the gun the mom might have a case but other than that I don't know....
0 Replies
 
Steppenwolf
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Dec, 2004 12:08 pm
Even if the mother can establish a duty, it's ultra-rare for people to succeed in finding liability for suicide facilitators (like gun shops). We would need the complaint to be sure, but I think that causality issues in this case are probably even greater than the duty issue. The woman is an intervening actor. Absent some very unusual facts, she probably breaks the causal chain.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Dec, 2004 12:10 pm
Steppenwolf wrote:
Even if the mother can establish a duty, it's ultra-rare for people to succeed in finding liability for suicide facilitators (like gun shops). We would need the complaint to be sure, but I think that causality issues in this case are probably even greater than the duty issue. The woman is an intervening actor. Absent some very unusual facts, she probably breaks the causal chain.


I concur Mr. Cocoran....

She can't prove ****
so we must acquit
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Dec, 2004 12:18 pm
Steppenwolf wrote:
Even if the mother can establish a duty, it's ultra-rare for people to succeed in finding liability for suicide facilitators (like gun shops).

I agree. It's rare, but it's not impossible.

Steppenwolf wrote:
We would need the complaint to be sure, but I think that causality issues in this case are probably even greater than the duty issue. The woman is an intervening actor. Absent some very unusual facts, she probably breaks the causal chain.

No, her act doesn't break the causal chain. Her act is the consequence of the causal chain. There is no intervening causal act here because the suicide is the end of the chain of acts.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/17/2024 at 11:29:39