Previous Post
Next Post

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I don’t understand how that lowlife only gets six years for this horrific crime. The judge and DA are the ones who should be getting sued for not doing their job.

  2. A know gang member shot this kid buy mistake. Instead of dealing with gang issue it much easyer blame gun. How well blame gun maker stop gang drive buy shooting??? They can blame gun makers all they want untill they stop gang from killing people have no effect on people they kill knifes fists guns.

  3. Lawyers have a deep-seated respect for the principle “follow the money,” or to put it another way, “Sue the ones with the deepest pockets.” I’m surprised some enterprising insurance company doesn’t offer the firearms equivalent of malpractice insurance to the manufacturers and dealers. (Which, in the long run, would drive up the price of everything, and make the lawyers even more rich.)

    Civil lawyers ALWAYS go after the ones with deep pockets. Let’s see…gang-banger serving three to six for a drive-by, versus a gun manufacturer? It’s no contest. But it’s the same ‘logic’ that has fast food joints facing lawsuits for causing weight gain. Now if they’d just sue the networks for making kids stupid, slothful, and slutty…I wouldn’t agree with the validity of the suit, but it sure would be entertaining to watch.

  4. Nope, not the bullet. It’s the car maker’s fault since it was a drive by shooting. Or perhaps the eye doctor that last examined the killer’s vision since it was a case of mistaken identity. Or perhaps it was the Lord’s fault for allowing oxygen near the firing pin to support explosive combustion.

  5. Don’t blame the lawyers. The bar has an obligation to the clients to try to make them whole — but the judges don’t. If the courts allow these absurd cases to go forward, it’s on them. You want tort reform? Reform the bench, not the bar. In commercial cases, some states have a “loser pays” system. Implement the same system in tort litigation and there won’t be any stupid cases like this one.

  6. It’s an absurd case at first glance, but what if the distributor knowingly sold these to criminals? You can’t be held accountable for that bottle of whiskey you sold. However you are responsible for that (obviously) fake ID toting highschool students well-being.

  7. This type of lawsuit would then equate to suing a car manufacturer for some drunk driver killing some one or damaging property. The issue at hand should indeed be the man who shot the boy should never see daylight again. The boy lost his life and for that the shooter should loose his.

  8. Last time I checked they should be going after the woman that did the straw buyers, and the gang banger that sent them in to buy the guns. Thats the kind of enforcement that needs to be done.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here