| 09.26.2002 |
 |
| Now Thats Irresponsible. - in Florida, of course 11/26/02 ---> 02:51PM - J.D.Reza |
|
fiveoOnce again, the courts in Florida have stepped way over the line. Not only can the people of Florida not count ballots to save their lives, they can’t see the difference between responsibility and innocence. In today’s wishy-washy, “centrist,” morally relativistic world nobody is responsible for anything, but everybody is partly responsible for everything. fiveoValor Corp, a weapons distributor, was ordered by a jury to pay $1.2 million dollars to Pam Grunow, the widow of Barry Grunow, after they found the company was 5% responsible for the shooting death of the Florida public school teacher. Mr. Grunow was shot and killed while working at Lake Worth Middle School by 13-year-old assailant Nathaniel Brazil who was convicted and sentenced to 28 years. fiveoThis marks the first time a gun distributor has been found liable in a shooting death. Allen Rostron, an attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence said, “This is a huge victory for safer guns…The jury ruled this company could have distributed a safer gun that would have made it harder for Nathaniel Brazill to commit this murder.” fiveoThis statement is ludicrous on it’s face. A gun that can stop someone from shooting somebody is like a ham sandwich without ham, or bread. What started as a product liability case soon degenerated into an all out attack on guns. fiveoIt all started with the jury selection process. On the second day of jury selection Judge Jorge Labarga was told that a prospective female juror said, “‘I don't know what this is all about. A gun is supposed to shoot people.’” That prompted the dismissal of that group of potential jurors. The final jury was made up of six women, three of which were a teacher, a teacher aide working in public schools, and a private school teacher. Attorneys for Valor Corp argued that this was not a jury of peers for the retailer but were denied any change of jurors. fiveo Attorneys for the plaintiff, Rebecca Larson and Bob Montgomery argued, in what is believed to be the first case of its kind, that the gun is inherently defective because it has no legitimate purpose. Larson and Montgomery said Valor Corp "could have made it [the gun] safe from the very get-go" by putting locks on that type of gun, Larson said. "Just like an automobile. We don't have to go down... and have seat belts installed in our cars." Conversely, we don’t sue Ford if someone does not wear their seatbelt and dies in an accident. Nor do we sue Chevrolet if someone uses one of their trucks to run somebody over. Also, just because a gun has a lock does not mean it will be used, nor is it tamper proof. fiveoLet’s examine the plaintiffs arguments: fiveo1) The Raven handgun can be fired by any person who gains access to it, including juveniles and others who are not authorized to use it. fiveoReally? I was under the assumption that the gun would ask for identification and then wait for DNA, fingerprint, and retinal analysis until it fired. fiveo2) It did not have any safety device or mechanism to prevent unauthorized users from firing it, although such devices and mechanisms were known and feasible at the time of its manufacture, distribution, and sale (of the weapon). fiveoJust for the record, it did have a safety. Kervin Dieujuste a friend of Brazill’s said in court testimony, “He clicked on something and said 'Now, the gun's on safety.'" Also, trigger locks, when available, aren’t always used and there is no law in place saying they should be. fiveo3) [The gun is]Primarily used for criminal activity and virtually useless for legitimate purposes of law enforcement, sport, or protection of persons or property. fiveo4)[The gun is]Particularly attractive to, and disproportionately used by, juveniles and criminals. fiveoGary Kleck, a Florida State University criminology professor, testified that the .25-caliber Raven used to kill teacher Barry Grunow is no more likely to be used in crimes than any other mass-produced handgun. He disagreed with data from the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) that shows the Raven handgun as one of the most frequently traced by the agency. fiveo5) A dangerous product that would chiefly be used by a class of persons likely to misuse the product. fiveo6) [The gun is]Primarily used for criminal activity and virtually useless for legitimate purposes of law enforcement, sport, or protection of persons or property. fiveoEmanuel Kapelsohn, a self professed gun enthusiast, testified and showed targets he used to fire hundreds of rounds from the Raven, which he said was accurate and reliable as a target pistol. fiveo7) Nathaniel Brazill used the Raven handgun intentionally, willfully, wantonly, and maliciously to shoot Barry Grunow, inflicting wounds that ultimately caused his death. fiveoIf this has already been said, why say more? Nathaniel Brazill killed his teacher. Not the gun, not Valor Corp, just Brazill is responsible, and Brazill has been found guilty and is in prison. fiveo A Federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agent examined the Raven semiautomatic pistol's parts and found they functioned properly. The gun also fired properly, the agent said. Valor attorney John Renzulli also pointed out that this gun legally changed hands for 11 years and was never tagged or pulled of the streets by the ATF. “This gun could be sold... by the federal government's laws today," Renzulli said. “Nothing went wrong with this Raven," said Valor attorney Jeff Cohen. "Unfortunately, it worked exactly as designed." fiveo Randy E. Barnett, a law professor at Boston University School of Law said, “I don't agree they [Valor Corp] are responsible at all,” he said. When asked if the thought the courts decision would be upheld he said “They sold a legal product that was designed to be operated the way it was. I would say it's not likely to be upheld on appeal. Gun manufacturers have been pretty successful on appeal.” Robert Cottrol, a law professor at George Washington University Law School said, “I don't see that the distributor should have any liability,” he said. fiveo The Palm Beach Post has conducted an online survey of approximately 10,000 people, 96% of which think the lawsuit goes to far. The overwhelming opinion is understandable. Putting the blame for Grunow’s death on the distributor of the gun is like bringing litigation against a lumber mill after getting a paper cut. fiveo The simple, straightforward, logical message, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” has been worn on shirts and displayed on bumper-stickers for years. A tool is simply an extension of the person. How many times have you heard a guitar write or play a song, by itself? As obvious as this seems, some people still disagree. However, it is ridiculous to believe that a company that produced a tool, legally, and sold it legally, could be responsible for a death that resulted from the use of the tool, illegally. How many lawsuits have you seen against Ace Hardware for people that have hung themselves from rope they made, or smashed their thumb with a hammer they may have purchased? The idea would be laughable, if it wasn’t the same idea that was tried in the Grunow v. Valor case. fiveo Unless this decision is reversed in appeal, this country will see a landslide of liability cases just like this. Next time you slip on the tile in your kitchen, sue Home Depot. Next time some kid drowns in a pool sue the city, for providing the water. fiveo This jury decision is a travesty of justice and you would do yourself and your fellow man good to stand up and voice your opinion about it. By finding Valor Corp even 5% responsible the Florida court acted irresponsibly. Put pressure on the courts through the press to get this decision reversed. ©2002 GypsiCreations |