Posted on 04/24/2017 6:37:24 PM PDT by digger48
INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) — The Indiana Supreme Court says an Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officer cannot sue a gun shop for damages after a suspect shot him with a gun bought at the store.
According to court documents, Demetrious Martin, a convicted felon who was unable to legally purchase or possess a firearm, shot IMPD Officer Dwayne Runnels during a traffic stop in December of 2011. The vehicle was stopped after matching the description of a car connected to an armed robbery and shooting. As Runnels approached the vehicle, Martin exited the car and proceeded to fire two shots at Runnels.
Runnels returned fire, hitting and killing Martin. Runnels was also hit, in the hip, in the exchange. As a result of the shooting, Runnels endured serious physical injuries and financial damages.
Prior to the shooting, Tarus Blackburn and Martin entered KS&E Sports, where Blackburn purchased the firearm used in the shooting. However, after leaving establishment Blackburn sold the gun to Martin for a profit in a “straw purchase.”
Documents also show that in May 2012, Blackburn was charged and pleaded guilty to being a straw purchaser, posing as the buyer of firearm, which was actually intended for Martin.
Nearly two years after the shooting, in Dec. 2013, Runnels filed a suit against KS&E Sports. Runnels’s suit alleged he was harmed due to KS&E’s negligent, reckless and unlawful sale of the gun to Blackburn that eventually went to Martin.
Documents show that the court said Runnels’s could not move forward with his suit seeking monetary damages from the shop. However, they did rule that Runnels can move forward with his public nuisance case against the gun shop because he is seeking equitable relief.
IMHO the court made the right decision.
unless it is an illegal sale this should be thrown out of court.
Greedy cop trying to make bank from a criminal incident. The gun store had nothing to do with the crime. They sold a legal product to someone legally allowed to buy their product. Now if that guy wants to commit a crime by gifting the gun to a felon in violation of law, that is not the gun store’s fault.
Wendy’s commercial
At first I thought it was Cindy Brady of “The Brady Bunch”.
Seems like he already had due proportion of justice...
Some of these cops out there sure are lawyer trigger happy. Irony they get all kinds of immunity for themselves, however...
Good point. Shouldnt we sue then the PD or judges for being lenient on criminals?
The cop is attacking third party targets and not his obermeisters... this is too typical of the system. In the mitary never do you hear blame for veteran suicide on the VA or the brass harassment of a soldier, despite it happening often
Why is he trying to sue the shop? They obviously sold a non-defective product, and the right ammo for it.
The court made the right decision if the store did not break the law, and the cop should be ashamed for trying to cash in.
Seems to me the only legal case would be against the straw purchaser. If the guy has any assets, that’s where I’d be digging. He deserves to be cleaned out.
“Runnels’ suit says a convicted felon named Demetrious Martin went gun shopping at the store. He entered KE&S with another man, Tarus Blackburn, and picked out a Smith & Wesson .40 caliber handgun. Later, when the two returned to the store, Martin allegedly waited outside while Blackburn filled out the paperwork and paid $350 for the gun. Once outside, Blackburn resold the weapon to Martin for $375.”
If two of you walk in and one picks the pistol. Then the buddy comes back in and buys it while the one who chose it waits outside. And THEN he sells it to him right as he walks out the door, that would be bad news.
I would think if it happened on shop property, that’s a big issue. Or if they said and did things that clearly indicated he was knowingly buying for a prohibited person.
I would think the case is weak unless there is a strong witness or video/audio that proves either of those two.
Could be either way depending on the facts.
The straw purchaser is very liable. So would the store be IF and only IF it was made clear by their statements, or clear circumstances, that the one guy would go ahead and buy it because the felon couldn’t. I’ve had a little experience there, and you’d be amazed at what people will say.
They will walk right up and say “that’s the one”, and then the other will tell the clerk, “I have to do the paperwork”. They’ll walk up reeking of pot or with booze on their breath.
Every sane dealer will turn them away because it could easily be a set up by BATFE to see if you will complete the sale. In fact, every store clerk should smell a set up when they are really clear that they are trying to get a gun to a prohibited person. But not all stores are equal.
But the cops lawyer could just be trying for a shakedown. I haven’t seen any stories about someone having definite proof of the store knowing and ignoring that it was a straw sale. If there was such proof, I think the case would have proceeded. The judge shut it down for a reason im guessing.
I once watched what I’m 99.9% sure was a straw purchase in an Indy gun shop.
300 pound black dude in the big baggy denim engineers coat and pants with a cute little black gal that was about 4-10 and 90 pounds.
He points out a 1911, she asks to see it and can barely hold the thing up, big dude nods and she pulls out a wad of Benjamins and does the paperwork.
Dons Guns. Used to run all kinds of cheesy commercials where he ended with “I don’t want to make a lot of money...I just love to sell guns!”
Don Davis was also all over the national news pushing for Clinton’s assault weapons ban. My brother and I asked him about it while we were there, and he laughed his ass off telling us how much money he made from that since he had several shipping containers full of the soon-to-be-banned items he sold at many many times what they cost him.
I like the points you touched on there.
That tell-tale selection process could be a dead give-away. I agree.
I also agree with your take that it must have been missing, clear evidence the gun dealer should have known.
It would be hard to know that took place though, unless you had viewed their video of the transaction, or if a third party had come forward.
If it could be shown the dealer made a mistake, and mistakes will happen to the best of us, I’d still go after the dealer. You can’t make a slip-up like this. (Not implying it did happen)
It doesn’t look good for the plaintiff here to go after the gun shop, at least knowing what we know. The attorney was looking for deep pockets > IMO.
Thanks for the comments.
IMHO the court made the right decision.
*************************************
Half right. ...The dealer made a legal sale and has no foreknowledge of what may happen with the gun after that. The gun dealer has no liability. ...Activist Judge, again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
