2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,239
- 52,463
- 2,290
This officer sued the gun store that sold a gun legally to one individual, who then sold it illegally to another person who then went on to use it to shoot an officer...
The court should have done better by throwing out both parts of the suit....
Now, if you are not a left wing anti gunner......the outcome of this case makes total sense, and should never have reached this court....
If you are a left wing anti gunner......you need more help than I can give you here....
Ind. Supreme Court dismisses wounded officer's claims against gun shop
In its opinion, the court dismisses Runnels' damage claims using that statute, but upheld his claim of public nuisance. In Indiana, plaintiffs may request an action to abate or enjoin a public nuisance if their property is negatively affected or the nuisance affects their enjoyment of life or property.
Demetrious Martin, a convicted felon, could not legally buy the handgun for himself, Runnels' suit alleged, so they conducted a "straw deal." Martin allegedly visited the store with Tarus Blackburn, also named in the suit, in October 2011 and picked out the .40-caliber Smith & Wesson handgun together, but left the store without making a purchase, according to court documents.
Hours later, Blackburn returned to the store and bought the gun for $325, which he allegedly sold to Martin in the store's parking lot for $375.
In December 2011, Martin used that gun to shoot and wound Runnels during a traffic stop, according to court documents. Runnels, who was hit in the hip, was able to fire back at Martin, killing him.
Attorneys for the store argued the case should be thrown out of Marion Superior Court in 2014, citing the immunity statute as proof the store wasn't responsible for Martin's actions. The judge ruled in Runnels' favor, allowing the case to proceed. In March 2016, the Indiana Court of Appeals also ruled the store was not immune from a lawsuit, allowing Runnels to continue to try to prove his case. In August, it moved to the Indiana Supreme Court.
The Indiana Supreme Court also disagreed with Runnels' claims that the law, which he says protects gun sellers but not the victims of these crimes, is unconstitutional, allowing for unequal privileges and violating due process.
Indiana Supreme Court Justice Geoffrey Slaughter wrote in his opinion Monday that the court came to its conclusion by strictly interpreting the statute as written, albeit acknowledging that, more broadly, it could be interpreted as contrary to arguments from both sides.
The court should have done better by throwing out both parts of the suit....
Now, if you are not a left wing anti gunner......the outcome of this case makes total sense, and should never have reached this court....
If you are a left wing anti gunner......you need more help than I can give you here....
Ind. Supreme Court dismisses wounded officer's claims against gun shop
In its opinion, the court dismisses Runnels' damage claims using that statute, but upheld his claim of public nuisance. In Indiana, plaintiffs may request an action to abate or enjoin a public nuisance if their property is negatively affected or the nuisance affects their enjoyment of life or property.
Demetrious Martin, a convicted felon, could not legally buy the handgun for himself, Runnels' suit alleged, so they conducted a "straw deal." Martin allegedly visited the store with Tarus Blackburn, also named in the suit, in October 2011 and picked out the .40-caliber Smith & Wesson handgun together, but left the store without making a purchase, according to court documents.
Hours later, Blackburn returned to the store and bought the gun for $325, which he allegedly sold to Martin in the store's parking lot for $375.
In December 2011, Martin used that gun to shoot and wound Runnels during a traffic stop, according to court documents. Runnels, who was hit in the hip, was able to fire back at Martin, killing him.
Attorneys for the store argued the case should be thrown out of Marion Superior Court in 2014, citing the immunity statute as proof the store wasn't responsible for Martin's actions. The judge ruled in Runnels' favor, allowing the case to proceed. In March 2016, the Indiana Court of Appeals also ruled the store was not immune from a lawsuit, allowing Runnels to continue to try to prove his case. In August, it moved to the Indiana Supreme Court.
The Indiana Supreme Court also disagreed with Runnels' claims that the law, which he says protects gun sellers but not the victims of these crimes, is unconstitutional, allowing for unequal privileges and violating due process.
Indiana Supreme Court Justice Geoffrey Slaughter wrote in his opinion Monday that the court came to its conclusion by strictly interpreting the statute as written, albeit acknowledging that, more broadly, it could be interpreted as contrary to arguments from both sides.
