Slain Cop's Parents Settle Lawsuit Against Mississippi Gun Dealer

[SecularMotion]

The parents of a slain Chicago police officer and a Mississippi gun shop they sued for selling the gun used to kill their son to a straw buyer said Tuesday that they reached a settlement.

Carolyn and Thomas Wortham III and Ed's Pawn Shop & Salvage Yard in Byhalia, Miss., said in a joint statement that they resolved the dispute "to the satisfaction of all parties."

The pawn shop agreed to increased vigilance on gun sales.

"The agreed policies will include the video recording of all handgun sales; three year storage of the video recordings of all handgun sales; and immediate notification to the local and federal authorities of any multiple handgun purchases that occur within any thirty day period," the statement said.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/thomas-wortham-gun-settlement-256367991.html

[blueridge3210]

1. Was there something you wanted to discuss about this article? (NT)

[thucythucy]

2. Hopefully this will start a trend.

Gun shop owners who knowingly sell to straw dealers, or are negligent as to complying with the law, need to feel it in their wallet.
Certainly, I imagine the owners of this "pawn shop and salvage yard" will be more careful about this in the future.

Can't help but wonder if this place might not be a chop shop as well.

[gejohnston]

3. It is something the Brady Campaign has been doing for years

it works on the same principle as a SLAPP suit. The difference here is that you target an industry you don't like and file questionable to meritless lawsuits to force them to go broke. The Brady Campaign and their ilk really don't care about violence, just the guns as evidenced here. Here, it doesn't look like the plaintiffs had any legitimate case against the pawn shop even with the low standard of proof needed to win a civil judgment. Here they got nothing other than what the pawn shop probably has been doing (complying with the 1968 Gun Control Act on reporting multiple handgun sales to the feds. Depending on MS law, the cops will throw any such notification in the shredder if they don't require it.) and keep video on file for three years (given this is the digital age and the low cost of 1T hard drives, I would anyway just to defend myself from bogus law suits.)

Gun shop owners who knowingly sell to straw dealers, or are negligent as to complying with the law, need to feel it in their wallet. Certainly, I imagine the owners of this "pawn shop and salvage yard" will be more careful about this in the future.

There is no evidence that they did. Had there been evidence, the ATF would be taking action.

Why do I say it is about the guns and not the violence? Simple. There is no evidence that the pawn shop knowingly sold the gun to a straw purchaser (otherwise, why would Brady Campaign settle out of court for nothing of substance?) instead of the straw purchaser who pled guilty of one count of violating the Gun Control Act. If the shooter was a resident of any state other than MS (and not brokered by a licensed dealer in the shooter's home state) that is a second count of violating Gun Control Act not to mention Illinois law.

[thucythucy]

7. Can't speak to the motivations of people I don't know,

but I notice it was the family of the dead cop which was plaintiff in the case. My understanding of civil law is that, as plaintiff of record, they were the ones who had to agree to the settlement, so your seeming to gloat over how "they got nothing" seems a bit callous, considering the circumstances as laid out in the article. Personally, I'd give the plaintiffs in a case such as this the benefit of a doubt, and wouldn't assume they're coming from some place other than wanting some justice done and hoping future such tragedies might possibly be averted.

I don't know much about the settlement either, since it was settled out of court and financial details in such cases are often kept from the public. But the article says that the murder victim's family was satisfied, so unless you're suggesting the family filed a law suit just for the fun of it, obviously something was accomplished. If nothing else, I suspect the owners of this pawn shop will be more careful in the future, a commendable outcome in and of itself. Maybe they didn't knowingly sell to a straw buyer, but then they were obviously duped (one of the men involved--a straw buyer--was convicted and sentenced to jail time). Either way, it would seem more care on their part is warranted.

"Questionable, meritless lawsuits...doesn't look like the [dead cop's family] had any legitimate case against the pawn shop...low standard of proof needed to win civil settlements....just to defend myself against bogus lawsuits...."

All that's missing is a reference to "underhanded attorneys" or "ambulance chasers" and I could swap your post out with any random Freeper post on any controversial civil case and wouldn't be able to tell the difference. The fact that the case wasn't summarily dismissed, and that a judge permitted a settlement, means there was at least some merit to it. I'm always somewhat suspicious of "frivolous lawsuit" rhetoric, since often as not it's in support of some corporate interest over consumers, or in this case, some business owner as opposed to the family of a crime victim.

Interesting how on the one hand you seem to be saying that the pawn shop "must have" complied with the law notifying the authorities about a suspicious sale, and then in the next breath make an offhand remark about such notification being thrown "into the shredder." Setting aside the fact that, as you note, we live in a digital age, so presumably "the shredder" would be an anachronism, I'm not sure why you'd want the police to ditch evidence that might be useful in prosecuting a possible crime. Not that it doesn't happen all the time--witness all the tens of thousands of rape kits rotting in various PD warehouses, evidence for all intents and purposes "thrown into the shredder." I'm just not sure why you'd want to seem so eager for that to happen.

Whatever laws apply, state or federal, I want in a case such as this for them to be enforced to the fullest extent possible. And where civil penalties can be applied, I want them used as well.

Everyone with a legitimate grievance--even people whose political agenda you don't like--deserves their day in court.

[gejohnston]

9. you missed my point

but I notice it was the family of the dead cop which was plaintiff in the case. My understanding of civil law is that, as plaintiff of record, they were the ones who had to agree to the settlement, so your seeming to gloat over how "they got nothing" seems a bit callous, considering the circumstances as laid out in the article. Personally, I'd give the plaintiffs in a case such as this the benefit of a doubt, and wouldn't assume they're coming from some place other than wanting some justice done and hoping future such tragedies might possibly be averted.

It was the Brady Campaign using the family's name. Not gloating at all, simply pointing out an obvious observation.

I don't know much about the settlement either, since it was settled out of court and financial details in such cases are often kept from the public. But the article says that the murder victim's family was satisfied, so unless you're suggesting the family filed a law suit just for the fun of it, obviously something was accomplished. If nothing else, I suspect the owners of this pawn shop will be more careful in the future, a commendable outcome in and of itself. Maybe they didn't knowingly sell to a straw buyer, but then they were obviously duped (one of the men involved--a straw buyer--was convicted and sentenced to jail time). Either way, it would seem more care on their part is warranted.

I'm suggesting the Brady Campaign manipulated the family into signing on to it. There was no evidence provided that the pawn shop was not careful. For evidence of that, the real "buyer" would be in the store at the same time. Yes he was convicted, he should have been convicted for interstate transfer and been sent up for more time. The family should have sued the shit out of him.

"Questionable, meritless lawsuits...doesn't look like the had any legitimate case against the pawn shop...low standard of proof needed to win civil settlements....just to defend myself against bogus lawsuits...."

Honest observation from the article. Criminal trials are proof beyond a reasonable doubt (99.99 percent likelihood) civil suits are preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not.) That is a low standard.

All that's missing is a reference to "underhanded attorneys" or "ambulance chasers" and I could swap your post out with any random Freeper post on any controversial civil case and wouldn't be able to tell the difference. The fact that the case wasn't summarily dismissed, and that a judge permitted a settlement, means there was at least some merit to it. I'm always somewhat suspicious of "frivolous lawsuit" rhetoric, since often as not it's in support of some corporate interest over consumers, or in this case, some business owner as opposed to the family of a crime victim.

Not how it works. In Florida the judge sends the parties to settle before it goes to court. Chances are, the judge has not seen any of the evidence or make a ruling either way. BTW ambulance chasers do exist. Maybe you can find examples of that FreeRepublic. You think that it is uniquely right wing? Guess what, you can find examples of it on Crooks and Liars too. You will find some of the most despicable dishonesty and bigotry at both sites as well. Same garbage, different "other". It is all a matter of whose ox is being gored. Abuse of the system simply exists.

Interesting how on the one hand you seem to be saying that the pawn shop "must have" complied with the law notifying the authorities about a suspicious sale, and then in the next breath make an offhand remark about such notification being thrown "into the shredder."

I said there is no evidence of the pawn shop having reason to believe it was a suspicious sale. At least not any presented in the article. If that were, the clerk had every right to refuse the sale. What I said was that the Gun Control Act requires the ATF be notified of any sale of more than one handgun in a five day period. If Mississippi requires the same, he would do that also. If they don't, the local police don't have a mechanism to do anything with it and if it isn't a state crime, they simply won't do anything about it other than ignore it. This is an illegal straw purchase under the Gun Control Act. You give me money for the gun. I go inside to buy gun. I come out and hand it to you. The clerk only sees me knowing what I'm doing. If you come in and pick it out and I do the other stuff, the clerk is likely to tell us to FOAD. http://www.dontlie.org/faq.cfm

Setting aside the fact that, as you note, we live in a digital age, so presumably "the shredder" would be an anarchism, I'm not sure why you'd want the police to ditch evidence that might be useful in prosecuting a possible crime. Not that it doesn't happen all the time--witness all the tens of thousands of rape kits rotting in various PD warehouses, evidence for all intents and purposes "thrown into the shredder." I'm just not sure why you'd want to seem so eager for that to happen.

The ATF is still in the age of paper only documents for the most part. There is no digital record. Some of their processes are still in the 1930s (when it was still the IRS.) I'm not eager at all. You are making false assumptions based on no evidence to support it. I simply pointed out how the system works. If he does notify the local police about someone buying three pistols the same day, who does he call? If it is not a crime, who is going to take a report and who is going to care? Probably nobody. With the feds, there is a form and a mailing address for that.

Whatever laws apply, state or federal, I want in a case such as this for them to be enforced to the fullest extent possible. And where civil penalties can be applied, I want them used as well.

As do I. If there is evidence that the pawn shop is running a shady business, he should lose his FFL and go to jail. The straw purchaser should get more than six months, and should have gotten more time for interstate sale of a handgun without a license. If IL's felony murder law could be applied to him, he should have gotten that too. The shooter should get life with no chance of parole. Both of them should be sued by the family.

There was a dealer in New Port Richey a few years ago that got busted last year. First, the state of Florida got wind of him discriminating against CCW applicants of color (he was licensed to teach CCW classes). After that, an employee expressed their concern about the store's inventory control to the ATF. Inventory control is a BFD under he GCA. When the ATF found a lot of guns where were logged in from the wholesaler, but not being logged out as sold nor, in the inventory, he quickly "found employment" at Federal Prison Industries. No, I didn't shed a tear for his ass either.

Everyone with a legitimate grievance--even people whose political agenda you don't like--deserves their day in court.

I agree. I have nothing against the family and I think they were led to honestly believe that they had a legitimate grievance against the pawn shop. The Brady Campaign did not have a legitimate grievance.

[thucythucy]

13. No I didn't.

I know exactly the point[s] you're trying to make: that since the Brady campaign filed this suit on behalf of the family, the case 1.) cannot possibly have merit because, after all, it's the Brady Bunch (but have you seen any depositions, read the filed motions? I suspect not) and 2.) an obviously grieving family that has been the victim of a terrible crime must by definition be too addled or dim or weak-minded to withstand being "manipulated" by these unscrupulous ambulance chasers. How else could they agree to be part of a case you find so offensive? It couldn't possibly be because they think it's the right thing to do, could it?

"Not how it works. In Florida the judge sends the parties to settle before it goes to court. Chances are, the judge has not seen any of the evidence or make a ruling either way."

Maybe in Florida. Here in Massachusetts I've seen civil cases thrown out by court clerks as frivolous or unlikely to prevail. The plaintiff has the right of course to appeal that, but judges here generally rely on their clerks--at least in the juresdictions with which I'm familiar--to weed out the obvious whackjob suits. And in any settlement, again at least the ones I've seen argued or to which I've been a party, the judge has to sign onto the agreement, and can outright refuse to sign on if he or she thinks the settlement is bizarre or contrary to law. Obviously the judge in this case didn't think so.

I seem to have more faith than you in our civil court system in terms of defendant rights. And I'm generally suspicious of efforts to restrict the rights of civil plaintiffs--the GOP's beloved "tort reform"--as efforts by business to shackle consumers who have no recourse but the civil courts. And I certainly don't think the threshold in civil cases should be that of criminal cases. Such an alteration would strip victims--whether of medical malpractice, gun violence, or product malfeasance (faulty car ignition systems come immediately to mind)--of what few avenues of recourse they have.

As for the rest of it, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Best wishes.

[gejohnston]

15. yes you did

I know exactly the point you're trying to make: that since the Brady campaign filed this suit on behalf of the family, the case 1.) cannot possibly have merit because, after all, it's the Brady Bunch (but have you seen any depositions, read the filed motions? I suspect not) and 2.) an obviously grieving family that has been the victim of a terrible crime must by definition be too addled or dim or weak-minded to withstand being "manipulated" by these unscrupulous ambulance chasers. How else could they agree to be part of a case you find so offensive? It couldn't possibly be because they think it's the right thing to do, could it?

Maybe they could think that. It is also a stated strategy the Brady Campaign took up 20 years ago and was quite honest about it.

Maybe in Florida. Here in Massachusetts I've seen civil cases thrown out by court clerks as frivolous or unlikely to prevail. The plaintiff has the right of course to appeal that, but judges here generally rely on their clerks--at least in the juresdictions with which I'm familiar--to weed out the obvious whackjob suits. And in any settlement, again at least the ones I've seen argued or to which I've been a party, the judge has to sign onto the agreement, and can outright refuse to sign on if he or she thinks the settlement is bizarre or contrary to law. Obviously the judge in this case didn't think so.

Court clerks can do that? In Kansas and Florida, that is called practicing law without a license. In Kansas they just hand you the forms, and can't tell you how to even fill it out. I didn't see anything bizarre about the settlement.

I seem to have more faith than you in our civil court system in terms of defendant rights. And I'm generally suspicious of efforts to restrict the rights of civil plaintiffs--the GOP's beloved "tort reform"--as efforts by business to shackle consumers who have no recourse but the civil courts. And I certainly don't think the threshold in civil cases should be that of criminal cases. Such an alteration would strip victims--whether of medical malpractice, gun violence, or product malfeasance (faulty car ignition systems come immediately to mind)--of what few avenues of recourse they have.

Didn't say the standard of proof should be changed. I said sue the people actually responsible. Using this theory, if a car lot legally sells a car to someone. That someone gets drunk and kills five people, should the car dealer be held liable when the driver was sober when he bought the car? No. The liquor store who sold the booze legally? No. Same thing here. The individual who committed the crime should not be held accountable, not an innocent party who in good faith followed the law.

[thucythucy]

17. Weird that you use the liquor store analogy.

Seems to me I've heard cases of bars being sued, and held responsible, for serving liquor to inebriated people who then went out and caused damage. This guy went into a pawn shop with $1500 cash to purchase weapons, and this didn't set off any alarms with the owners? Negligence, intentional or not, which has now been dealt with and will hopefully will not happen again.

As for the rest of it, we obviously have differing experiences and different outlooks. In a situation like this my sympathy goes out to the victims of crime, not the person or persons who decided that $1500 cash on the counter outweighed any possible suspicion they might have about the purchase of multiple firearms.

But like I say, we obviously differ, and I doubt either of us will be able to convince the other.

[gejohnston]

18. the dram shop law

refers to being getting too drunk on the premises, including private parties. That doesn't describe a liquor store. In every state and country I have been in, liquor stores and bars are two different things (with the possible exception of "red tents" in Saudi Arabia, but that's a different issue.)

This guy went into a pawn shop with $1500 cash to purchase weapons, and this didn't set off any alarms with the owners?

Depending on the gun, that ranges from one to five. Ever work in an auto parts store? Cash sales like that are not that unusual.

[gejohnston]

4. Since the Brady Campagin settled out of court for so little

and nothing actually enforceable, I'm guessing there is no evidence of legal wrong doing on the pawn shop's part. Question is, why isn't there a suit against the shooter, the straw purchaser (who pled guilty to a federal crime and is likely guilty of interstate transfer without a license (unless the shooter was a resident of Mississippi as well, and maybe even knowingly transferring to a prohibited person). I already know the answer to that.

[thucythucy]

8. You mean, since the family of the murder victim settled out of court.

Even if you bring a suit "on behalf" of someone, that plaintiff still has say over any possible settlement.

"Carolyn Wortham said. 'I know that Tommy would have wanted me to fight so that other families would be spared the tragedy ours has suffered.'"

That statement says to me that the family supported the lawsuit, that they see this as fighting on behalf of their loved one. You seem to be saying, what? that they're mindless pawns in the hands of the unscrupulous Brady bunch?

[gejohnston]

11. I'm saying that the

unscrupulous Brady bunch manipulated a grieving family.

[thucythucy]

12. I'll leave it up to the family to decide for themselves

if they were "manipulated." Offhand I'd say that's a rather patronizing, condescending attitude you have toward this particular family. Do you know them personally? Have you reason to believe that its members are easily cajoled? Or are you simply assuming that, because you personally find the case without merit, it just has to be that the family was "manipulated" by the unscrupulous Brady bunch?

I suspect the latter.

[gejohnston]

14. glass houses

if they were "manipulated." Offhand I'd say that's a rather patronizing, condescending attitude you have toward this particular family. Do you know them personally?

But you have no problem judging this pawn shop, based on a newspaper article and no evidence whatsoever, of being a criminal enterprise. I at least provided evidence. Not patronizing at all, simply been "around the block" enough to learn a few things.

Have you reason to believe that its members are easily cajoled?

no, but I have been around long enough on the planet and been around the world, literally, enough to learn things about human nature. Greaving people are always easily conned.

Or are you simply assuming that, because you personally find the case without merit, it just has to be that the family was "manipulated" by the unscrupulous Brady bunch?

The article provided no evidence of any wrong doing. You assumed that there was based on your own prejudices with no evidence.

[thucythucy]

16. The article says the straw dealer

who has been convicted, paid $1500 cash for the weapons, "which should have raised suspicions." If I went to an airport and tried buying airline tickets for $1500 cash, I suspect someone would pull me aside to ask for more details. Who the hell carries $1500 in cash to buy anything these days? Oh, right, law abiding gun enthusiasts.

And the shop is admitting they were lax by agreeing to step up their vigilance, however worthless you might believe such efforts to be. To me the fact that the shop agreed to these steps indicates to me they weren't taking all the steps necessary to keep guns out of the hands of straw buyers. Hopefully, now that they've agreed to these conditions, this won't be a problem in the future.

[gejohnston]

19. ever work in an auto parts store?

who has been convicted, paid $1500 cash for the weapons, "which should have raised suspicions." If I went to an airport and tried buying airline tickets for $1500 cash, I suspect someone would pull me aside to ask for more details.

Only if they are one way tickets. When you buy a gun with cash or credit you must provide on an ATF 4473: name, address, Social Security number, drivers license number, height, weight, eye color, hair color, race, place of birth, immigration status. More than one handgun, the dealer gets to fill out another form after I leave. Last year, I bought four airline tickets to Montreal and I gave the names of the travelers and my CC number.

Who the hell carries $1500 in cash to buy anything these days? Oh, right, law abiding gun enthusiasts.

About half of the 99 percent who are financially responsible, save and take the cash to the store. Ever work in an auto parts store? That kind of cash deals are not unusual. A lot of people don't use or like credit cards. In rural areas and people who go to pawn shops, even more likely.

And the shop is admitting they were lax by agreeing to step up their vigilance, however worthless you might believe such efforts to be. To me the fact that the shop agreed to these steps indicates to me they weren't taking all the steps necessary to keep guns out of the hands of straw buyers. Hopefully, now that they've agreed to these conditions, this won't be a problem in the future.

that tells me that they told the media whatever bullshit the lawyers told them to.

[thucythucy]

20. Yeah, right. Fifteen hundred dollars in cash

is walking around money "for half of the 99 percent who are financially responsible." And the last time I took my car in for repairs I noticed all the folks hanging around with the money-belts tied around their waists. Same deal whenever I go into an auto parts store. "Hmmm, one thousand five hundred dollars, you say? Hang on, I think I just might have that in my back pocket." Why, I bet there's at least half a grand in the "take a penny, leave a penny" cup at my local coffee shop!

"...They told the media whatever bullshit the lawyers told them to."

As I recall, the story said they weren't available for comment, but since you already know the victim's family were duped by unscrupulous attorneys, without actually knowing anything about the family, you also know the reasons behind the defendant's statements, or lack thereof, without actually having to, you know, actually hear them say anything.

I for one am glad the suit was filed. I'm glad the case was settled, I'm grateful for that much added vigilance on the part of the pawn shop owners, and happy for whatever measure of solace the family of the victim was able to garner from this outcome.

[gejohnston]

21. who said anything about walking around money?

It's called go to the bank and get it as needed. Also, people who go to auto parts stores do their own work. Shops have parts delivered.
Duped by unscrupulous ideologues who use SLAPP suit tactics when We The People tell them to screw off.

Personally, I would rather have seen the straw purchaser get the max for both Gun Control Act violations, the full ten years for each straw purchase and full ten years for each interstate sale without a license to be served consecutively.

[ManiacJoe]

5. The article suggests that the straw purchaser was not prosecuted for the felony.

[gejohnston]

6. that is seems to be a typical sentence for

federal straw purchase violation (pled guilty down from "lie and buy" and interstate transfer, plus whatever else). I remember reading about a guy that got 18 months (out of a possible of ten years) for having an unregistered NFA weapon.

[ManiacJoe]

10. My bad. I misread the article to think no prosecution happened at all.