Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 46

Thread: Father of a victim in the Brookfield shooting considering lawsuit

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Mequon, WI
    Posts
    42

    Father of a victim in the Brookfield shooting considering lawsuit

    Sorry if this was posted already and I missed it, but I just saw this online. A father of one of the victims in the Azana spa shooting is considering suing stating that they should have done more to protect his daughter. Interesting read.

    http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/176679231.html

  2. #2
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    I sympathize with him for his loss, but extorting a business and racking up its legal fees is the right thing to do.

    What does he want? armed security guards at every single storefront in the country?
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  3. #3
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Like what? Metal detectors, body cavity searches....
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    I'm a bit confused. If Iunderstand rightly, her father (the guy contemplating suing someone/anyone) built the salon "for his daughter".

    But someone else operates it.

    The person who operates the salon says she beefed up security, but there is no mention of how/when. There is also no mention of what, if any, features the builder put in place in the first place.

    What I seem to get out of this is that the guy is butt-hurt his daughter is dead* and can't make the killer pay because he is dead and has no meaningful estate to go after. So somebody has to pay to make his butt-hurt feel better.

    Am I missing anything?

    stay safe.

    * I sympatize with his loss and understand the feeling of wanting to hold someone/something responsible. The responsible party is dead. The wife of the responsible party may or may not have some culpability for coming to work when she might have known her husband was so PO'd that he would do some sort of violence around her. The salon operator may or may not have some responsibility for getting in the middle of someone else's domestic dispute thus distracting the guy from killing his wife and shooting "wildly" resulting in this innocent person's death.

    I'm not as insensitive a SOB as this may sound like. I'm just trying real hard to figure out 1) why the father thinks anybody besides the shooter is responsible for his daughter's death, and 2) how he can not hold himself at least partly responsible for not building in better security in the first place.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    I sympathize with him for his loss, but extorting a business and racking up its legal fees is the right thing to do.

    What does he want? armed security guards at every single storefront in the country?
    175.60(21)(b)(c) - Loss of immunity should something happen in a place that posts.

    http://docs.legis.wi.gov/statutes/statutes/175/60/21

    (b) A person that does not prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising from its decision. (c) An employer that does not prohibit one or more employees from carrying a concealed weapon under sub. (15m) is immune from any liability arising from its decision.


    Azana did not provide any due diligence to protecting its employees or customers.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  6. #6
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    I'm a bit confused. If Iunderstand rightly, her father (the guy contemplating suing someone/anyone) built the salon "for his daughter".

    But someone else operates it.

    The person who operates the salon says she beefed up security, but there is no mention of how/when. There is also no mention of what, if any, features the builder put in place in the first place.

    What I seem to get out of this is that the guy is butt-hurt his daughter is dead* and can't make the killer pay because he is dead and has no meaningful estate to go after. So somebody has to pay to make his butt-hurt feel better.

    Am I missing anything?

    stay safe.

    * I sympatize with his loss and understand the feeling of wanting to hold someone/something responsible. The responsible party is dead. The wife of the responsible party may or may not have some culpability for coming to work when she might have known her husband was so PO'd that he would do some sort of violence around her. The salon operator may or may not have some responsibility for getting in the middle of someone else's domestic dispute thus distracting the guy from killing his wife and shooting "wildly" resulting in this innocent person's death.

    I'm not as insensitive a SOB as this may sound like. I'm just trying real hard to figure out 1) why the father thinks anybody besides the shooter is responsible for his daughter's death, and 2) how he can not hold himself at least partly responsible for not building in better security in the first place.


    In Wisconsin, once any business makes the choice to post a"no self defense" sign, it accepts civil liability for any damagethat may occur in the place. Notposting takes the liability off of the shoulders of the store owner. It is part of our Wisconsin law.

    As far as Isee it, in this state, an owner would have to install armed guards to be freeof the liability clause in our law.

  7. #7
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    175.60(21)(b)(c) - Loss of immunity should something happen in a place that posts.

    http://docs.legis.wi.gov/statutes/statutes/175/60/21

    (b) A person that does not prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising from its decision. (c) An employer that does not prohibit one or more employees from carrying a concealed weapon under sub. (15m) is immune from any liability arising from its decision.


    Azana did not provide any due diligence to protecting its employees or customers.
    So what? banning a concealed weapon shouldn't expose you to liability either. This whole dream of some gun rights activists to punish business owners and take away THEIR rights doesn't sit well with me.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  8. #8
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    So what? banning a concealed weapon shouldn't expose you to liability either. This whole dream of some gun rights activists to punish business owners and take away THEIR rights doesn't sit well with me.
    Well that's a darn shame. We feel bad about it too.

    Did you ever consider that if they had allowed carry the situation could have turned out differently?
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  9. #9
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by oak1971 View Post
    Well that's a darn shame. We feel bad about it too.

    Did you ever consider that if they had allowed carry the situation could have turned out differently?
    No, because effective rates of licensure are very low, around 2 to 4% of a states population may be licensed at any one time. and in Wisconsin maybe 150,000 permits active out of 5 million people. Then there's the number of CCW holders who actually carry on a regular basis. most people in WA get a CPL just to waive the wait period and never carry. and the open carry camp usually overlaps to a good degree with the CCW licensee population.

    so you would have to assume

    A) a licensee is a customer or employee at that building
    B) That they're carrying at the time of the incident
    C) that they decide to fight instead of flee
    and D) that they have a level of competence nessecary to stop an attacker in a gun battle.

    now i'm 100% in favor of citizens carrying because I believe it's one's constitutional right to do so. but I don't think just allowing CCW holders in and out of your business is a shield against a mass shooting. In addition mass shootings are so rare that it's not like a business is opening their customers to unreasonable risk if they ban firearms on the business premises. it's not the same as having faulty fire alarms or locking the emergency escape doors.

    and i think private property owners have a right to restrict who they want on their property. As long as I have the right to walk away and do business with someone else then they are no threat to my constitutional rights.
    Last edited by EMNofSeattle; 11-04-2012 at 10:58 PM.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    bula
    Posts
    6
    It is a feelgood immunity statute worded so loosely a competent insurance attorney team should be able to smoke out a dozen different interpretations.
    Last edited by Vern; 11-05-2012 at 12:01 AM. Reason: because

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    So what? banning a concealed weapon shouldn't expose you to liability either. This whole dream of some gun rights activists to punish business owners and take away THEIR rights doesn't sit well with me.
    Why shouldn't it? The business decided to not protect its customers. That is negligence!
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Central Wi
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    No, because effective rates of licensure are very low, around 2 to 4% of a states population may be licensed at any one time. and in Wisconsin maybe 150,000 permits active out of 5 million people. Then there's the number of CCW holders who actually carry on a regular basis. most people in WA get a CPL just to waive the wait period and never carry. and the open carry camp usually overlaps to a good degree with the CCW licensee population.

    so you would have to assume

    A) a licensee is a customer or employee at that building
    B) That they're carrying at the time of the incident
    C) that they decide to fight instead of flee
    and D) that they have a level of competence nessecary to stop an attacker in a gun battle.

    now i'm 100% in favor of citizens carrying because I believe it's one's constitutional right to do so. but I don't think just allowing CCW holders in and out of your business is a shield against a mass shooting. In addition mass shootings are so rare that it's not like a business is opening their customers to unreasonable risk if they ban firearms on the business premises. it's not the same as having faulty fire alarms or locking the emergency escape doors.

    and i think private property owners have a right to restrict who they want on their property. As long as I have the right to walk away and do business with someone else then they are no threat to my constitutional rights.
    With the recent shootings in the last couple years it would lead me to believe that the BGs STILL think that the risk is to high to apply their trade where weapons are allowed. How many BGs changed their mind about causing mayham when then saw someone in the area that MAY be armed? Is the donut shop ever robbed when leo's are present? Is the BG concerned about being arrested or shot?
    "Democracy..... Is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch,
    Liberty..... Is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
    Benjamin Franklin

  13. #13
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    So what? banning a concealed weapon shouldn't expose you to liability either. This whole dream of some gun rights activists to punish business owners and take away THEIR rights doesn't sit well with me.
    Get over it, EMN. In Wisconsin we have the immunity clause to "encourage" anybody who serves the public to honor their 2A rights and recognize their CCW license. When you don't recognize the fact that by not allowing someone to carry in the beauty parlor the owners prevented any chance of the patrons defending themselves then you are ignoring basic logic. If that doesn't sit well with you then don't come to Wisconsin, because it's the law here. Have a safe day in Kitsap.
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  14. #14
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    No, because effective rates of licensure are very low, around 2 to 4% of a states population may be licensed at any one time. and in Wisconsin maybe 150,000 permits active out of 5 million people. Then there's the number of CCW holders who actually carry on a regular basis. most people in WA get a CPL just to waive the wait period and never carry. and the open carry camp usually overlaps to a good degree with the CCW licensee population.

    so you would have to assume

    A) a licensee is a customer or employee at that building
    B) That they're carrying at the time of the incident
    C) that they decide to fight instead of flee
    and D) that they have a level of competence nessecary to stop an attacker in a gun battle.
    Ok, so if the spa allowed carrying inside the odds of there being someone there at the right time are probably low. True.

    By not allowing carry inside the odds are as close to zero as you can get.

    The odds that I'll ever need to do a left-handed only revolver reload are very low too. But still I practice the technique from time-to-time.

    I'll take the slight advantage offered by low odds over NO odds every time.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  15. #15
    Regular Member oliverclotheshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    mauston wi
    Posts
    849
    Quote Originally Posted by Shotgun View Post
    Ok, so if the spa allowed carrying inside the odds of there being someone there at the right time are probably low. True.

    By not allowing carry inside the odds are as close to zero as you can get.

    The odds that I'll ever need to do a left-handed only revolver reload are very low too. But still I practice the technique from time-to-time.

    I'll take the slight advantage offered by low odds over NO odds every time.
    shotgun excellent point
    SCOTT

    "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"

    "When seconds count police are minutes away"

    "Dialing 911 only takes seconds but waiting for help may take the rest of your life"

    http://g2-elite.com/phpbb/index.php Shed Hunting

  16. #16
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle
    so you would have to assume
    A) a licensee is a customer or employee at that building
    B) That they're carrying at the time of the incident
    C) that they decide to fight instead of flee
    and D) that they have a level of competence necessary to stop an attacker in a gun battle.
    The only person I know who is a customer there is an OC advocate, so she would have been all but D for sure if the spa hadn't been posted. Not knowing her training or competence I can't speak to D, but it probably wouldn't take much lead being thrown in his direction to persuade him to rethink his plans.

    mass shootings are so rare that it's not like a business is opening their customers to unreasonable risk if they ban firearms on the business premises
    I can't think of a mass murder that has NOT happened in a "(legal) gun-free" zone.

    As long as I have the right to walk away and do business with someone else then they are no threat to my constitutional rights.
    That's one of the main reasons I think that no gov't building or property should be allowed to prohibit the peaceful exercise of civil rights. There is no alternative place to pay your taxes or go to court.

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle
    What does he want? armed security guards at every single storefront in the country?
    Only the places that don't allow people to act in their own self-defense.

    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark
    If I understand rightly, her father (the guy contemplating suing someone/anyone) built the salon "for his daughter".
    You misread.
    The article says he built a hair salon for her on the back of his warehouse.
    The spa where this mass murder happened is its own business, a standalone massive swank building.

    The person who operates the salon says she beefed up security, but there is no mention of how/when.
    One article I read said something to the effect that they locked all doors except the main entrance & told employees to be alert.
    Worked out real well, didn't it?

    1) why the father thinks anybody besides the shooter is responsible for his daughter's death
    Not that others are 'responsible' so much as partially liable. The spa owner decided to prohibit self-defense, but did nothing to protect employees & customers.
    Yes, an armed guard at the front door & walking people to/from their cars would come near being equivalent... and might very well have deterred both his vandalism and the murders.

    ETA:
    PS: from all I've heard & read, the Brown Deer PD seems to have done everything they were allowed to do, with the possible exception of arresting him for DC when he had that standoff & pretended to point a gun at her.
    Last edited by MKEgal; 11-05-2012 at 05:16 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    The only person I know who is a customer there is an OC advocate, so she would have been all but D for sure if the spa hadn't been posted. Not knowing her training or competence I can't speak to D, but it probably wouldn't take much lead being thrown in his direction to persuade him to rethink his plans.
    Maybe, maybe not in 2005 I believe a shooter walked in to the Tacoma Mall in Tacoma, Washington and went on a spree, a CPL holder did draw his weapon but was shot before he could fire (I've heard at least 5 conflicting stories of what happened with him, why he was there etc so I won't go into more then the accepted details) I don't think mass shooters actually fear armed citizens, they certainly don't fear police, most either kill themselves or go out in a blaze of glory fighting law enforcement. The fact that the Aurora shooter was arrested unharmed is relatively rare.

    Again as I said I totally support someone's right to defend themselves, as much as I respect private property rights. I also don't think having a gun is a magic force field against harm (which I'm not saying you do believe that, so don't take that the wrong way)


    I can't think of a mass murder that has NOT happened in a "(legal) gun-free" zone.
    Well there was a shooting Alabama in which a man killed members of his family, drove to a gas station, shot the customers there, and then drove down a highway in which he shot another man who attempted to subdue him, then drove to his former employer where he committed suicide after a gun battle with local police in which he injured the police chief. but several of his killings were in a gas station and a road which are not your typical gun free zone, and AL is a right to carry state. Geneva County Massacre

    in 1990 after Florida passed their shall issue carry law (Washington had the first shall issue law predating florida by 20 years, don't let anyone use the term "Florida Carry" for shall issue) a man took a .38 revolver and an M-1 carbine to a car dealership (unlikely that it had no gun signs posted) and killed some people. James Pough was his name and this was in Jacksonville.

    in 2006 There was the Capitol Hill Massacre in Seattle, this may not strictly qualify as it was at a private residence from what I understand so probably no anti-gun posted signs.

    in Florida a pair of Sheriff's deputies were gunned down by a national guardsman who was accused of domestic violence AT A RIFLE RANGE and none of the shooters did anything about it.

    gun free zones often make the press as shootings sites, but that's because the shooter probably wants their name in the papers, so killing children at a school is the way to do that, or crowded venues like theatres on opening night of a popular movie because it increases body count. correlation does not always equal causation. I doubt any of these killers ever consider the legal status of guns on the intended property. Gun bans and shootings at those properties may correlate, but they're both caused by a third factor... a large crowd of gathered people in a prominent place.


    That's one of the main reasons I think that no gov't building or property should be allowed to prohibit the peaceful exercise of civil rights. There is no alternative place to pay your taxes or go to court.
    But they're also guarded by armed personnel in the building and have screening procedures to detect weapons before someone enters. (usually)


    Only the places that don't allow people to act in their own self-defense.
    So I know WI law eliminates liability for allowing CCW. but why should it? mass shootings are rare enough that it's not reasonable to forsee them as a constant threat the requires allowing people to carry firearms. and in reality, a minority of businesses actually do ban guns. walk into virtually any business in Kitsap county with your OC piece and you'll probably be allowed to do business, in fact when I worked at a grocery store i was specifically told in training that we allow legal OC and CC.

    now if massacres and gun battles happened daily that might be a different concern, but I've been alive for 20 years now, yet to be involved in a mass shooting incident. not that I'm Naive and refuse to accept it can happen, but I also understand that statistically it doesn't happen often enough to where it justifies lopping liability unto private businesses.

    One more, if you see this as a rant against legal carry of a firearm, just know that I am not in anyway opposed to that, just also supportive of private property rights.
    Last edited by EMNofSeattle; 11-05-2012 at 06:57 PM.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  18. #18
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Vern View Post
    It is a feelgood immunity statute worded so loosely a competent insurance attorney team should be able to smoke out a dozen different interpretations.
    You a lawyer now? Don't like it, don't visit our state. Easy fix.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  19. #19
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Maybe, maybe not in 2005 I believe a shooter walked in to the Tacoma Mall in Tacoma, Washington and went on a spree, a CPL holder did draw his weapon but was shot before he could fire (I've heard at least 5 conflicting stories of what happened with him, why he was there etc so I won't go into more then the accepted details) I don't think mass shooters actually fear armed citizens, they certainly don't fear police, most either kill themselves or go out in a blaze of glory fighting law enforcement. The fact that the Aurora shooter was arrested unharmed is relatively rare.

    Again as I said I totally support someone's right to defend themselves, as much as I respect private property rights. I also don't think having a gun is a magic force field against harm (which I'm not saying you do believe that, so don't take that the wrong way)




    Well there was a shooting Alabama in which a man killed members of his family, drove to a gas station, shot the customers there, and then drove down a highway in which he shot another man who attempted to subdue him, then drove to his former employer where he committed suicide after a gun battle with local police in which he injured the police chief. but several of his killings were in a gas station and a road which are not your typical gun free zone, and AL is a right to carry state. Geneva County Massacre

    in 1990 after Florida passed their shall issue carry law (Washington had the first shall issue law predating florida by 20 years, don't let anyone use the term "Florida Carry" for shall issue) a man took a .38 revolver and an M-1 carbine to a car dealership (unlikely that it had no gun signs posted) and killed some people. James Pough was his name and this was in Jacksonville.

    in 2006 There was the Capitol Hill Massacre in Seattle, this may not strictly qualify as it was at a private residence from what I understand so probably no anti-gun posted signs.

    in Florida a pair of Sheriff's deputies were gunned down by a national guardsman who was accused of domestic violence AT A RIFLE RANGE and none of the shooters did anything about it.

    gun free zones often make the press as shootings sites, but that's because the shooter probably wants their name in the papers, so killing children at a school is the way to do that, or crowded venues like theatres on opening night of a popular movie because it increases body count. correlation does not always equal causation. I doubt any of these killers ever consider the legal status of guns on the intended property. Gun bans and shootings at those properties may correlate, but they're both caused by a third factor... a large crowd of gathered people in a prominent place.




    But they're also guarded by armed personnel in the building and have screening procedures to detect weapons before someone enters. (usually)




    So I know WI law eliminates liability for allowing CCW. but why should it? mass shootings are rare enough that it's not reasonable to forsee them as a constant threat the requires allowing people to carry firearms. and in reality, a minority of businesses actually do ban guns. walk into virtually any business in Kitsap county with your OC piece and you'll probably be allowed to do business, in fact when I worked at a grocery store i was specifically told in training that we allow legal OC and CC.

    now if massacres and gun battles happened daily that might be a different concern, but I've been alive for 20 years now, yet to be involved in a mass shooting incident. not that I'm Naive and refuse to accept it can happen, but I also understand that statistically it doesn't happen often enough to where it justifies lopping liability unto private businesses.

    One more, if you see this as a rant against legal carry of a firearm, just know that I am not in anyway opposed to that, just also supportive of private property rights.
    Look, pass your own laws in your own state however you like. Don't tell us how to conduct our business.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    But they're also guarded by armed personnel in the building and have screening procedures to detect weapons before someone enters. (usually)




    So I know WI law eliminates liability for allowing CCW. but why should it? mass shootings are rare enough that it's not reasonable to forsee them as a constant threat the requires allowing people to carry firearms. and in reality, a minority of businesses actually do ban guns. walk into virtually any business in Kitsap county with your OC piece and you'll probably be allowed to do business, in fact when I worked at a grocery store i was specifically told in training that we allow legal OC and CC.

    now if massacres and gun battles happened daily that might be a different concern, but I've been alive for 20 years now, yet to be involved in a mass shooting incident. not that I'm Naive and refuse to accept it can happen, but I also understand that statistically it doesn't happen often enough to where it justifies lopping liability unto private businesses.

    One more, if you see this as a rant against legal carry of a firearm, just know that I am not in anyway opposed to that, just also supportive of private property rights.
    Businesses are free to or not to post. However, if they do post, they must show due diligence in protecting their customers. Your changes of getting robbed, stabbed, shot, raped, etc are fairly low. However, just because they are low, doesn't mean you won't be another one of those statistics and would you want to be that statistic? We haven't had a murder in Sussex in 10-15 years, but would you want to be that one person that was? I certainly don't and that is why I take responsibility to guard my life from those who wish to cause harm to death to me.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  21. #21
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by oak1971 View Post
    Look, pass your own laws in your own state however you like. Don't tell us how to conduct our business.
    I'm not telling you to conduct your business, Is there a law specifically stating that failure to allow CCW will result in civil liability? no there is not, only a liability shield if you choose to allow it. And I'm certain the majority of Wisconsin's population doesn't support your form of petty despotism either. now maybe you can start having a discussion on a general issue instead of throwing these absurd and fallacious attacks at me.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  22. #22
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    Businesses are free to or not to post. However, if they do post, they must show due diligence in protecting their customers. Your changes of getting robbed, stabbed, shot, raped, etc are fairly low. However, just because they are low, doesn't mean you won't be another one of those statistics and would you want to be that statistic? We haven't had a murder in Sussex in 10-15 years, but would you want to be that one person that was? I certainly don't and that is why I take responsibility to guard my life from those who wish to cause harm to death to me.
    So where does it end? if a business doesn't allow you to wear full MOPP gear into their store becuase it frightens their customers will you hold the business liable if Mr protective suit catches a common cold or a flu? If they don't put a helicopter landing pad in their parking lot should the store be liable if you injure youself landing on the roof? C'mon here.

    You can just as easily argue that posting is in fact a form of due dillegence. again if you don't like their policy, don't shop there. forcing a business to accept your views by a financial punishment in reality just shows you don't like freedom of expression or freedom of association. Two wrongs don't make a right.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    I'm not telling you to conduct your business, Is there a law specifically stating that failure to allow CCW will result in civil liability? no there is not, only a liability shield if you choose to allow it. And I'm certain the majority of Wisconsin's population doesn't support your form of petty despotism either. now maybe you can start having a discussion on a general issue instead of throwing these absurd and fallacious attacks at me.
    Yes, the law does. 175.60(21)(b)(c) as I posted earlier.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  24. #24
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    I'm not telling you to conduct your business, Is there a law specifically stating that failure to allow CCW will result in civil liability? no there is not, only a liability shield if you choose to allow it. And I'm certain the majority of Wisconsin's population doesn't support your form of petty despotism either. now maybe you can start having a discussion on a general issue instead of throwing these absurd and fallacious attacks at me.
    It was cited above.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  25. #25
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    The law states

    b) A person that does not prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising from its decision.
    (c) An employer that does not prohibit one or more employees from carrying a concealed weapon under sub. (15m) is immune from any liability arising from its decision.

    That only confers immunity, it does not state liability.

    That's if like you choose to allow CPL holders in your store and a CPL holder goes nuts and shoots the place up an anti can't sue claiming that the pro-CCW policy is what led to the shooting. or if you licensed employee shoots a thief in the back as they flee and the store owner never said to due that then that's immunity. that language does not in any state you're liable if you ban CCW and a shooter comes in.

    The statue would have to say "A person who prohibits an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person owns or occupies shall be liable for any death or injury resulting from that decision"
    Last edited by EMNofSeattle; 11-05-2012 at 08:33 PM.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •