Father of a victim in the Brookfield shooting considering lawsuit

oak1971 said:

Look, pass your own laws in your own state however you like. Don't tell us how to conduct our business.

Click to expand...

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.

protias said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

EMNofSeattle said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, the law does. 175.60(21)(b)(c) as I posted earlier.

EMNofSeattle said:

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.

Click to expand...

It was cited above.

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"

Vern said:

It is a feelgood immunity statute worded so loosely a competent insurance attorney team should be able to smoke out a dozen different interpretations.

Click to expand...

EMNo, your last post was beautiful.

EMNofSeattle said:

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"

Click to expand...

Call Atty Gen JB Van Hollen and ask him.

Vern said:

EMNo, your last post was beautiful.

Click to expand...

I see the cheerleader has arrived.

oak1971 said:

Call Atty Gen JB Van Hollen and ask him.

Click to expand...

Attorney General Hollen will speak to anyone who calls the State Capitol switch board and give an official opinion? wow they don't do that in my state, you're right things are REALLY different in the Badger state

Does Atty General Hollen do this? does he know you're directing people to his office for that opinion and are invoking his name as an authority?

Please Cite.

oak1971 said:

You a lawyer now? Don't like it, don't visit our state. Easy fix.

Click to expand...

The answer to your question is one never knows for sure BULA. I dont have to visit Wisconsin, I reside in Wisconsin.

Insurance attorneys interpretations matter nothing. Judges' interpretations matter.

But what lawyer in his or her right mind would advise their client to pass up immunity and take their chances in court?

EMNofSeattle said:

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.

Click to expand...

A business gives up a lot of private property rights when they open their business to the public. Once you open to the general public, you can no longer consider the property "private"...It is now a "public place" Why? because they are open to the gereral public...

You think not? Ever notice almost all businesses have automatic doors? That is "Americans with Disabilities Act" compliance. Have yopu ever hear of a hotel, motel, restaraunt, department store that has a sign posted "no Blacks" or "no whites" or "no Jews"? That is the civil rights act of 1964...among other things.

We have an even higher law...the constitution (both WA and US(and WI) that says we can "bear arms" for for our own personal self defense...that is higher law than any ADA or CRA64...Don't give me that "it's private property" garbage...any business that is open to the public, gave up their private property rights when they opened their doors to the public.

EMNofSeattle said:

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.

Click to expand...

This FBI study published in 2007 which interviewed felons in federal prisons, people who had killed police officers, came to the conclusion that criminals fear armed citizens more than they do police. They also concluded that criminals do not carry openly, & practically never use holsters.
Nothing personal, but I'm more inclined to believe their research than your opinions.

MKE said:

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.

Click to expand...

Seattle said:

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

Click to expand...

Our city hall doesn't have armed guards (unless you count the occasional police officer wandering through) or metal detectors. In fact, other than the courts buildings, I can't think of any city buildings that do. Nor county. Nor state. But way too many of those do have stickers on the doors prohibiting me from being able to protect myself, & they do nothing to prevent me from being harmed, either in the building or on the way to/from.

Seattle said:

So I know WI law eliminates liability for allowing CCW. but why should it?

Click to expand...

No, WI law prohibits CCW. But one defense against persecution is possessing a valid cc license.
As for why the law protects only places which allow carry, why do places which prohibit it need immunity?
Their signs will keep out anyone with a gun, right?
Nothing to have immunity from.

Seattle said:

mass shootings are rare enough that it's not reasonable to forsee them as a constant threat the requires allowing people to carry firearms...
I've been alive for 20 years now, yet to be involved in a mass shooting incident.

Click to expand...

Well I wasn't raped until I was 28, & didn't suffer a burglary until I was in my 40's.
That doesn't mean crimes weren't happening, only that I'd been lucky enough not to have them happen to me before that.
Besides, the problem is not the rare mass murder, the problem is the everyday criminal. There are lots of those crawling around, & most of them will suddenly change their plans if they learn that their intended prey won't be easy.

hermannr said:

A business gives up a lot of private property rights when they open their business to the public. Once you open to the general public, you can no longer consider the property "private"...It is now a "public place" Why? because they are open to the gereral public...

You think not? Ever notice almost all businesses have automatic doors? That is "Americans with Disabilities Act" compliance. Have yopu ever hear of a hotel, motel, restaraunt, department store that has a sign posted "no Blacks" or "no whites" or "no Jews"? That is the civil rights act of 1964...among other things.

We have an even higher law...the constitution (both WA and US(and WI) that says we can "bear arms" for for our own personal self defense...that is higher law than any ADA or CRA64...Don't give me that "it's private property" garbage...any business that is open to the public, gave up their private property rights when they opened their doors to the public.

Click to expand...

Find me one court ruling in Washington or Wisconsin that agrees with you there.

If you're so confident then why don't you go to a business that's anti, sit there with your gun and refuse to leave. tell me what happens. Find me a single court case awarding a judgement to the family of someone slain in a "gun free zone" on the grounds that business should've allowed the gun or provided more security. I've never heard of a court buying that argument. find one court case in which a trespass citation was thrown out on the grounds that carrying a gun is constitutionally protected to the degree that a business should've let you carry.

MKEgal said:

This FBI study published in 2007 which interviewed felons in federal prisons, people who had killed police officers, came to the conclusion that criminals fear armed citizens more than they do police. They also concluded that criminals do not carry openly, & practically never use holsters.
Nothing personal, but I'm more inclined to believe their research than your opinions.

Click to expand...

What? we were talking mass shooters, not cop killers or petty criminals. We were also mainly discussing CCW as well...
And I promise none of these people planned to commit crimes in a certain area due to lack of armed civilians. you can shoot up any street in the country and 90% likely the cops will show up before a citizen fires back.

Our city hall doesn't have armed guards (unless you count the occasional police officer wandering through) or metal detectors. In fact, other than the courts buildings, I can't think of any city buildings that do. Nor county. Nor state. But way too many of those do have stickers on the doors prohibiting me from being able to protect myself, & they do nothing to prevent me from being harmed, either in the building or on the way to/from.

Click to expand...

in Milwaulke? I gotta believe there's more then one cop at city hall. I mean Port Orchard City Hall the desk sergeant, chief of police, and police commander are all armed and usually on premises. However guns are only restricted on the top floor of the building (municipal court)

Every county courthouse I've been too has large staffs of guards, and in all but one the security staff are armed.

No, WI law prohibits CCW. But one defense against persecution is possessing a valid cc license.
As for why the law protects only places which allow carry, why do places which prohibit it need immunity?
Their signs will keep out anyone with a gun, right?
Nothing to have immunity from.

Click to expand...

They don't need express immunity, Not many courts will seriously consider the claim of someone claiming that a business is responsible for a mass shooter walking into the building and killing people. But If a court did take that claim seriously then yes I would support passing a law to provide it. Business owners don't need to be forced by big brother to take sides in political issues.

Well I wasn't raped until I was 28, & didn't suffer a burglary until I was in my 40's.
That doesn't mean crimes weren't happening, only that I'd been lucky enough not to have them happen to me before that.
Besides, the problem is not the rare mass murder, the problem is the everyday criminal. There are lots of those crawling around, & most of them will suddenly change their plans if they learn that their intended prey won't be easy.

Click to expand...

But your whole previous argument was based on mass murderers. not the every day criminal. most of those people CAN be deterred by force. but we were talking mass shooters, not your average felon.

Time to move on. The thread is deteriorating rapidly and all we know about EMNofSeattle is it can't spell Milwaukee and it smells like a troll.

EMNofSeattle said:

in Milwaulke? I gotta believe there's more then one cop at city hall.

Click to expand...

You can believe whatever you want, but your wrong.

EMNofSeattle said:

I mean Port Orchard City Hall the desk sergeant, chief of police, and police commander are all armed and usually on premises. However guns are only restricted on the top floor of the building (municipal court)

Click to expand...

The whole building would be a Self Defense Free Zone by Wisconsin State law.

Milwaukee is a little bit of a bigger place than that. The Court house is in a different location, as is the Police Administration Building (not to mention seven different districts).

In 999,999 cases out of a million, I would disagree with suing a business over something like this.

This is the exception...so long as what I've heard is correct.

From what I've been told...the people at this spa _knew_ the shooter was trouble. They had had meetings _specifically_ addressing this man and his arguments with his wife. They knew a restraining order was placed against him. They knew he'd slashed his wife's tires. There were all kinds of warning signs about this couple.

I think they either should have told the wife to stay away until the situation with her husband was resolved....or provided an armed guard on site...

Now, if you have some random a-hole walk into a McDonalds and hose down the crowd...no...there's no exposure there. You can't protect against things like that. But in the incident case, we have a known threat from a specific individual.

MKEGal said:

I can't think of a mass murder that has NOT happened in a "(legal) gun-free" zone.

Click to expand...

That'll be a short list.

Only one that springs to mind is the hunting incident up North (Wisconsin) in '04...Chai Vang wigged out and killed 6 and wounded 2.

Teej said:

That'll be a short list.

Only one that springs to mind is the hunting incident up North (Wisconsin) in '04...Chai Vang wigged out and killed 6 and wounded 2.

Click to expand...

I listed 3 others too