Couple Sues walmart over inadequate security

[Edwardteach72]

A couple who survived el Paso is suing walmart

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/c...uffer&utm_term=ttagfeed&utm_campaign=ttagfeed

 

[Toecutter]

Imaging walmart put guards wearing armor and rifles at the entrance . people would shit themselves.

 

[Edwardteach72]

Imaging walmart put guards wearing armor and rifles at the entrance . people would shit themselves.

Its walmart I'm pretty sure a good portion of the customer base already shits themselves

 

[GOYABEAN]

Sue their nuts off

 

[Carlos Hathcock]

If there's a tragedy and an angle, there'll be a scumbag attorney to take advantage of it.

 

[Acer-m14]

awesome shut them down .. no more microwave food .. if you cant cook.. oh well
back to old mom n pop stores .. bullets on the counter .. take a few .. not candy dishes lol

 

[Celt]

Personally, I think that any business that denies a person the right to personal protection should be required to provide armed security.

 

[MoMan]

This is getting ridiculous. Look, I like hating on WM as much as the next guy, BUT, WM is not a 'gun free zone'! Up until just last weekend, they were even OC, if allowed by law! Were these 'victims' denied the right to exercise their 2A in WM?

This is a real slippery slope, where the 'victims' are suing anyone/anything, for everything. Are they going to be allowed to sue Ford, or Chevy if someone shoots them in a drive-by?? Life is full of ways to 'get dead' everyday, and it just seems like the blood sucking lawyers are the ones who will get rich by this.
Like I said; RIDICULOUS!!

People just need to be sure they are armed, all day, every day!! Fuck the signs, and restrictions, PROTECT YOURSELF!!!!

 

[meketrefe]

If there's a tragedy and an angle, there'll be a scumbag attorney to take advantage of it.

Not necessarily.
If you ask citizens to be disarmed when they come into a "gun free zone", what is the plan to keep that zone gun free? Scanners, armed guards, etc...
Or imagine an airport secure zone w/o scanners or metal detectors or any kind of screening.
Every time there is a crime in a pretending gun free zone we should litigate as people has been purposely left defenseless. Citizens have been put in a position with no possible scape and lives will be lost again.
Police has no business providing security for every citizen everywhere and that is why the popilation, buildings, school grounds, malls, etc.... have to provide their own plans and armed individuals to help. Like they do in Israel for example.

 

[Phazer]

If there's a tragedy and an angle, there'll be a scumbag attorney to take advantage of it.

Sort of....

In this case, I prefer this argument:

• If your establishment has a policy requiring patrons to disarm, then the establishment accepts full responsibility to ensure the safety of patrons on the premises in lieu of allowing patrons to protect themselves.
• People acceding to the establishment's policies have essentially entered into a contract with that establishment as a result of a policy being set and agreed to by patrons that comply with the policy.
• If the patrons fulfill their side of the contract by disarming, then the establishment is in breach of contract if they do not subsequently protect the patrons.
• The establishment is thus culpable for any harm that comes to patrons caused by a threat that breaches their security.

 

[spat]

Not necessarily.
If you ask citizens to be disarmed when they come into a "gun free zone", what is the plan to keep that zone gun free? Scanners, armed guards, etc...
Or imagine an airport secure zone w/o scanners or metal detectors or any kind of screening.
Every time there is a crime in a pretending gun free zone we should litigate as people has been purposely left defenseless. Citizens have been put in a position with no possible scape and lives will be lost again.
Police has no business providing security for every citizen everywhere and that is why the popilation, buildings, school grounds, malls, etc.... have to provide their own plans and armed individuals to help. Like they do in Israel for example.

If they have advertised a "gun free zone" as part of their shopping experience, but they fail to take appropriate steps to deliver on that, I absolutely think that's a tort.

If some restuarant advertises itself as an "allergen free zone" but someone goes into anaphylactic shock from some peanut oil, then you later find that all they did to implement their "allergen free zone" policy was put up some signs, then I'd say you had a decent case.

 

[BDinPutnam]

Given that the police have no duty to protect an individual, why would a private business?

There is also a definite difference between an airport and a Walmart, IMHO.

 

[spat]

Given that the police have no duty to protect an individual, why would a private business?

There is also a definite difference between an airport and a Walmart, IMHO.

If the private business advertises itself as a gun free zone, then they absolutely have a responsibility to at least take reasonable steps to deliver on that promise.

 

[BDinPutnam]

If the private business advertises itself as a gun free zone, then they absolutely have a responsibility to at least take reasonable steps to deliver on that promise.

It's a prohibition, not a promise. I think your "allergen free zone" restaraunt analogy may be a little inapt?

 

[meketrefe]

If they have advertised a "gun free zone" as part of their shopping experience, but they fail to take appropriate steps to deliver on that, I absolutely think that's a tort.

If some restuarant advertises itself as an "allergen free zone" but someone goes into anaphylactic shock from some peanut oil, then you later find that all they did to implement their "allergen free zone" policy was put up some signs, then I'd say you had a decent case.

Cities, towns, states and even the federal goverment might be liable if they advertise gun free zones but fail to provide secure access to a secured perimeter. Why would we ise preferentialntreatmet for court houses, govermemt buildings and other places while we keep childrens and innocent shoppers wo protection and we force those working there to be also defenseless?
Even if the 2nd amendmwnt didnt exist I see this as a violatuon of fundamental human rights.
We should ask those questions in town halls all across america and put the fear they are peronally liable, yes those pushing for radical ideas with total disregard of peoples safety.
We dont even need to bring up the right to carry debate but simply ask what is the plan to secure those perimeters?
Then we are happy to leave the pistol at home or in the cars safe, right?

 

[BDinPutnam]

Yeah except I have a reasonable expectation that I am safe at court; I do not (nor should I) expect that from Walmart.

 

[Celt]

Given that the police have no duty to protect an individual, why would a private business?

There is also a definite difference between an airport and a Walmart, IMHO.

Two completely differnt things there.

If a private business has fire code violations that could lead to a person being injured they can be fined or shut down. If a private business does not allow law abiding citizens to legally protect themselves then they have an obligation to provide protection from violence just as they do from fires or even health code violations, imo.

 

[Blimey]

I hope walmart counter sues for damages but I doubt it would because of "bad PR".

 

[VietnamEraVet]

Given that the police have no duty to protect an individual, why would a private business?

There is also a definite difference between an airport and a Walmart, IMHO.

There is a difference between a truly private business, and one that offers public access as part of their business. I absolutely think that any business operating a public accommodation has a legal responsibility to protect their customers from harm, - whether that harm comes in the form of a slippery floor; stock falling from unsafe shelves, or,... from someone shooting your ass when the business has removed your ability to legally defend yourself.

So, let a few people get shot in restricted locations owned by big business, and then sue the shit out of them. Once a few hundred millions in vedicts come down the pike, the tune will change.

And of course, in accordance with those stupid shit laws in NY state against anyone other than licensed lawyers dispensing legal advice, I hereby declare that the above comment is just me expressing an opinion, - NOT legal advice! YMMV. Oh, and FUAC!

 

[BDinPutnam]

C'mon.

So homicidal maniac opens fire in the post office and moves on to shoot up the stamp collector shop next door that doesn't have a no guns policy.

Then moves over one more store to the teashop that does.

The teashop is fucked?

 

[spat]

C'mon.

So homicidal maniac opens fire in the post office and moves on to shoot up the stamp collector shop next door that doesn't have a no guns policy.

Then moves over one more store to the teashop that does.

The teashop is fucked?

What did the tea shop do to implement their policy ?

Did they have metal detectors and guards ? That would be a reasonable effort that just didn't succeed.

Did they just have a sign ? Not a reasonable effort, so they would be liable.

That's like a hospital that doesn't sterilize stuff and just puts up "germ free zone" signs instead.

 

[Acer-m14]

went to a friends little boys b-day party last year .. it was one of them kids jump bounce places in Rochester .. the gun free zone sign was placed at the very bottom of the glass door .. literally at foot level ... only your feet could see it if you were not actually looking for that sign .. total BS ..

maybe my next trip to walmart i will ask the greater if there is armed security .. if so i will need a escort while shopping like a girl .. i will go up and down every fkin isle at a snails pace checking stuff out ..

 

[Acer-m14]

 

[BDinPutnam]

What did the tea shop do to implement their policy ?

Did they have metal detectors and guards ? That would be a reasonable effort that just didn't succeed.

Did they just have a sign ? Not a reasonable effort, so they would be liable.

That's like a hospital that doesn't sterilize stuff and just puts up "germ free zone" signs instead.

"Liable" for what? They are saying don't bring guns in the store. That is a far cry from "if you come in here we guarantee you will be safe." Its a prohibition. It isnt a promise or a guarantee.

I think your latest analogy is even less apt than the allergen free thing. If I go to the hospital for surgery there is a contract between me (or my insuror) and the hospital that the hospital will take reasonable steps to not kill me. Not to mention a host of malpractice laws and ethics rules in the medical profession. Retail? Not quite apples to apples.

 

[Celt]

C'mon.

So homicidal maniac opens fire in the post office and moves on to shoot up the stamp collector shop next door that doesn't have a no guns policy.

Then moves over one more store to the teashop that does.

The teashop is fucked?

The way i see it, the right to self defense is a fundamental right, if a store is denying people the ability to defend themselves then they have an obligation to provide that level of protection for its patrons.

IMO, its no different than a health code or fire department violation that puts patrons in harms way.

In your example of the tea shop, the tea shop is denying any of its patrons the right to defend themselves and putting them In harm's way, so it's irrelevant if the lunatic started in their store or ended up in their store.

 

[Grimscale]

If I go to the hospital for surgery there is a contract between me (or my insuror) and the hospital that the hospital will take reasonable steps to not kill me.

Are you sure?
I don't remember reading any contract stating, in effect, "we guarantee these premises and the equipment used to perform your surgery is sterile and free of harmful foreign substances."

Not to mention a host of malpractice laws and ethics rules in the medical profession.

That started when? They weren't available when the first surgeons lopped off limbs to combat gangrene. They had to start somewhere/sometime.

They are saying don't bring guns in the store.

Right. They are effectively saying "you are not allowed the tools necessary to properly protect yourself".
And we are saying "if we cannot protect ourselves because of your concerns, then it is up to YOU to protect us while we are helpless on your property."

It has to start somewhere. We are seeing the start of that requirement.

In an age where criminals can successfully sue a homeowner for leaving a knife out on a counter that the criminals cut themselves with, or their family can sue a homeowner because they climbed a fence and drowned themselves in a pool, I expect this to be ruled against Walmart.

 

[Darth]

If a store has a no gun policy, and you still choose to shop there, the store has zero responsibility to protect you.

If you don't like it, shop elsewhere.

And they call the millennials entitled...

You make a decision when you decide to shop in a store. You have every opportunity to not shop there. They owe you nothing.

 

[BDinPutnam]

If I get hit by a truck I dont (usually) have much choice as to which hospital I go to.

You have a plethora of choice as to where you buy your Chinese sneakers.

 

[Celt]

If a store has a no gun policy, and you still choose to shop there, the store has zero responsibility to protect you.

If you don't like it, shop elsewhere.

And they call the millennials entitled...

You make a decision when you decide to shop in a store. You have every opportunity to not shop there. They owe you nothing.

If a store chooses not to put in a fire suppression system or have properly working doors, or marked exits (any fire code requirements) and the place catches fire then tough crap for you.

If a restaurant doesnt provide soap for its employees to wash hands after using the bathroom and you catch ecoli then too bad for you.

This is not the same as baking someone a gay cake. Its a life safety issue.

 

[BDinPutnam]

So does the store that does not have a no guns policy have a responsibility to protect you if theres an armed robbery and you're shot by either the robber or an armed patron?

If you really, truly fear for your life walking into Walmart- what's forcing you to go to Walmart?