-
Welcome to our legal community! Click here or the create new topic button to ask a question and receive answers and comments from our friendly and helpful legal community.
Articles that answer frequent legal questions are in our Law Guide. Important legal news is reported in The Law JournalYou can find a lawyer near you in the Lawyer Directory. If you know that you need to hire an attorney, you can submit a case review from a lawyer.
Air Force Mostly To Blame
- Thread Starter justblue
- Start date
army judge
Super Moderator
Yes, it was rumored for the last two years (that I know about) to have the AF involved or as the perpetrator.
I don't know enough to say definitively, but it certainly isn't impossible.
Redemptionman
Active Member
They found the AF 60 percent responsible for what I am not sure nor why a judge would take ut upon himself to determine that and not let a jury decide.
They didn't report the murderers criminal history as they were mandated to. As a result, a violent felon was able to purchase guns and then killed 26 men, women and children attending Sunday services at a Baptist Church in Sutherland, TX. It was the Judges job to determine fault.
This goes into it with a bit more depth.
Judge Says The Air Force Is Mostly Responsible For A 2017 Texas Church Shooting
Last edited:
Not knowing all the facts makes it difficult to comment on whether the failure and oversight should make them responsible, especially to this level.
But one would think that the Judge in this case did have the facts. While it's possible that, had the AF properly reported the felonies, the killer might have illegally purchased his weapons, the fact is he didn't have to. The AF's negligence made it easy for the killer to get the guns.
Tax Counsel
Well-Known Member
The plaintiffs filed a tort claim against the United States for the deaths and injuries that occurred as a result of the shooting. The claim made by the plaintiffs was that the Air Force was negligent when it failed to report the shooter's dishonorable discharge to the FBI database. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(6) it is a felony for any person dishonorably discharged from the US armed forces to "ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce." Persons barred from possession of firearms under 922(g) are unable to get the clearance needed from the FBI background check if the reason for their disqualification is entered into the FBI database. The Air Force is supposed to provide that information to the FBI. The judge determined after hearing all the evidence that the FBI's failure to do as it was required to do was indeed negligence, with the Air Force 60% at fault. The judges opinion in the case was very detailed, running nearly 100 pages. That 60% fault then affects the computation of damages that the government must pay.
As for why the judge decided the case rather than a jury, that is because lawsuits against the federal government under the federal Torts Claim Act cannot be tried to a jury; all such tort claims against the federal government are decided by federal district court judges. So it was certainly not a situation where a judge just took it upon himself to decide the case and keep it from a jury. Rather, that's what the law requires.
Redemptionman
Active Member
That is stupid, never heard a comparable fault case where the defendant is less than 50 percent liable for his own actions. Of course, make sense though if you are pushing a certain agenda, Everyone always blames someone else for their own actions, no one takes responsibility these days and the courts support it.
Tax Counsel
Well-Known Member
The shooter was not a defendant in the case — just the government. And that fact affected how the court analyzed how much the government must pay for its negligence.
Of course the shooter would be responsible for his actions. But there was no judgment against the shooter because he was not a defendant in the case.
This was my initial reaction - government being perceived as the deep pockets to compensate when the primary actor responsible cannot.
The government was not a co-conspirator or involved in any way with the initiative by the perpetrator. The government happened to be just one of several parties that might have done something which could have helped flag the incident. So why should they be held more responsible (60%) than the perpetrator himself who was clearly the primary actor who put the events into place and committed the act? The only way this makes sense to me is if some lesser fault was assigned to the government, e.g. 10% and the verdict was 60% of that 10%.
Disabled Vet
Well-Known Member
Sad that the idiot who pulled the trigger isn't the reason. What happened when we didn't have computers? Days that we had gun racks in our truck with unlocked doors. Guns are not the problem. Family, Friends should report anyone that they feel is unstable to own a firearm. I can remember the day I visited a friend of mine who is a pastor. He had 15 firearms in his living room that was just dropped off by a family member of someone that was struggling mentally. Only one in this case who is at fault is the shooter.
Redemptionman
Active Member
Agree but great experienced lawyers know just how to find these pockets for the people who have the potential to pay the plaintiff. It is not about what you can prove in court. It is about what works and how to work that system to the best possible outcome for your client.
Even if it doesn't make sense in the practical sense.
Even if it doesn't make sense in the practical sense.
Last edited:
Share this page
