Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Alaska Dispatch News)   If a gun shop leaves a homeless man unattended and finds a rifle missing with $200 left on the counter, tells the police it was stolen but tells the bank it was a sale, who gets sued when the homeless man shoots a random stranger? Show your work   (adn.com) divider line 157
    More: Fail, Fred Meyer, target shooting, paperwork, Alaska Supreme Court, rifles, tort law, homeless, shootings  
•       •       •

6761 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 May 2014 at 2:38 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



157 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-05-09 12:26:35 PM  
No one, because the Second AMendment
 
2014-05-09 12:32:52 PM  
No lawsuit.

BATFE busts them for straw sale. FBI follows up with fraud.

Police taze everyone involved.
 
2014-05-09 12:35:18 PM  
Does this involve trains leaving separate stations at the same time with different weather patterns?
 
2014-05-09 01:10:16 PM  

JoieD'Zen: Does this involve trains leaving separate stations at the same time with different weather patterns?


No fargin' trick questions!
 
2014-05-09 01:36:30 PM  

dr_blasto: No lawsuit.

BATFE busts them for straw sale. FBI follows up with fraud.

Police taze everyone involved.


No straw sale. Everyone involved agrees the guy got the gun from that shop. The question is whether he stole it and left money or the place sold it to him
 
2014-05-09 01:47:06 PM  
Hoping to get some answers, the Kim family is suing the gun shop where Coday got the gun used in the murder


Well, they are looking to get something, but I doubt it's "An$wer$"
 
2014-05-09 02:24:22 PM  
I don't get it. Where were the good guys with the guns to stop the bad guy with the gun?
 
2014-05-09 02:28:54 PM  
optimalhumanmodulation.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-05-09 02:36:12 PM  
NRA answer: Arm the homeless!
 
2014-05-09 02:36:49 PM  
Wait, go back to the part where the homeless guy had $200.


/take the gun, leave the canolli
 
2014-05-09 02:40:34 PM  
BENGHAZI!
 
2014-05-09 02:40:41 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid:


I have never seen that gif before. I love it.
 
2014-05-09 02:41:30 PM  
If the gun costs 100 dollars more than the bullet,  and the total was $110 dollars how much was the gun?


/ I know this....
 
2014-05-09 02:41:47 PM  
I'd never sell a gun to a dude with that mustaches/beard combo - it just reeks evil.
 
2014-05-09 02:41:56 PM  
Sue em all let the jury sort it out. Thought that's how America works.
 
2014-05-09 02:42:36 PM  

cgraves67: Because People in power are Stupid:

I have never seen that gif before. I love it.


can't....stop....watching....it
 
2014-05-09 02:42:47 PM  

Danger Mouse: If the gun costs 100 dollars more than the bullet,  and the total was $110 dollars how much was the gun?


/ I know this....


$105.
 
2014-05-09 02:43:08 PM  
TFA does not make it clear whether the dealer filed a police report or not?
 
2014-05-09 02:43:30 PM  
Seems like it would depend on whether the shop actually reported the gun as stolen or waited until after the shooting to claim that.
 
2014-05-09 02:44:00 PM  
Wow the store owner's story sounds like the kind of bullshiat a 5 year old would come up with.
 
2014-05-09 02:44:19 PM  
That gun was payment for services rendered, and the Cleveland Browns say thanks again for the excellent draft advice.
 
2014-05-09 02:46:07 PM  
img4.wikia.nocookie.net
everyone gets a cavity search no matter what.
 
2014-05-09 02:46:17 PM  
He shot a man in Juneau, just to watch him die?
 
2014-05-09 02:47:01 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: [optimalhumanmodulation.files.wordpress.com image 209x111]


I need to use that for the next school shooting/office building shooting thread.

/dont get pissed its america, you know its any day now
 
2014-05-09 02:47:05 PM  
This is impossible, gun shop owners have never been known to commit crimes, and actually sell freedom.
 
2014-05-09 02:47:19 PM  
Alaska, huh? Then the perp is tots cray cray.

That's a tough one. The bum failed to legally purchase the gun. So, the shop's owner didn't break any laws. It sounds like the owner reported the incident to the proper authorities. But; why do you leave a customer holding your merchandise, especially something as expensive as a gun, without anybody watching him? Sounds a little fishy to me.
 
2014-05-09 02:47:41 PM  
Farking Common Core.
 
2014-05-09 02:47:42 PM  
FTFA: Two video security systems were in place the day Coday came in, but they didn't document the interaction. Coxe said an employee failed to put in a fresh tape.

Yeah, you've screwed up.  Who leaves a gun shop unattended, with or without someone there?  And the video surveillance happens not to be there?  :-P
 
2014-05-09 02:48:09 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: [optimalhumanmodulation.files.wordpress.com image 209x111]


Pffft...9mm...
 
2014-05-09 02:48:09 PM  
He shot a man named Simone, just to watch him die?
 
2014-05-09 02:48:21 PM  
Am I the only one thinking this happens (gun left on counter, owner goes out of sight to do paperwork, customer leaves cash and takes off, no surveillance camera video) with some relative frequency?

The issue is that the guy who bought the gun was a lunatic and went and killed someone in short order. The laws are there for a reason. Coxe (the vendor) was not stupid. He was criminally and willfully negligent.
 
2014-05-09 02:48:22 PM  
Really?

"I can't technically sell this to you, but I'll just turn my back for a second, wink, wink" really does count as plausible deniability?
 
2014-05-09 02:48:28 PM  
Eric Holder
 
2014-05-09 02:49:02 PM  

Dear Jerk: He shot a man in Juneau, just to watch him die?


because he was Asian and not as much of a loser as he was. This was a hate crime.
 
2014-05-09 02:49:24 PM  
ts4.mm.bing.net
 
2014-05-09 02:49:49 PM  
Why would a homeless man want a rifle?

They are hard to hide.

It makes no sense.
 
2014-05-09 02:50:46 PM  
Depends. Being homeless is no legal barrier to gun ownership. Was the guy a convicted felon, or had he been involuntarily committed to a loony bin? If so, then I'd say the gun dealer is screwn, because nobody's buying that "uh, the guy took the gun and left the money when my back was turned" story, even if it were true. Which it isn't, because c'mon, please. If the homeless guy could legally own a gun, then the gun dealer's home free, whether he sold him the gun or it was stolen.
 
2014-05-09 02:51:11 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: This is impossible, gun shop owners have never been known to commit crimes, and actually sell freedom.


It's Alaska. They are obligated, by Alaskan law, to give you a gun and $1,000 cash when you move to Alaska.

/ seriously
 
2014-05-09 02:51:18 PM  
Just assume that everybody in Alaska is on the lam.
 
2014-05-09 02:53:12 PM  

Kuta: Am I the only one thinking this happens (gun left on counter, owner goes out of sight to do paperwork, customer leaves cash and takes off, no surveillance camera video) with some relative frequency?

The issue is that the guy who bought the gun was a lunatic and went and killed someone in short order. The laws are there for a reason. Coxe (the vendor) was not stupid. He was criminally and willfully negligent.


But, can anybody prove it? Don't forget; it's Alaska, home of the Tea Party.
 
2014-05-09 02:54:46 PM  

Kuta: Am I the only one thinking this happens (gun left on counter, owner goes out of sight to do paperwork, customer leaves cash and takes off, no surveillance camera video) with some relative frequency?


That...seems unlikely.  In my experience, when the shop employee called the NICS check it was done right in front of me or (in the case of Cabela's) the gun was taken behind a counter with half a dozen other employees with it.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-05-09 02:54:57 PM  
Who gets sued? Everybody, because there is in practice no penalty for filing a stupid lawsuit. Who loses? Trickier question.

Results of the long-running case have been mixed so far. First, a Superior Court judge in Juneau summarily dismissed the Kim family's lawsuit, saying it was barred under the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. But the Alaska Supreme Court last year reinstated the case, saying the act didn't bar claims if Rayco illegally sold the weapon to Coday.

18 USC 7903(5)(A)(iii)(I). Immunity of a dealer under the Act depends on filing proper paperwork.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/7903
 
2014-05-09 02:59:05 PM  
Something the plaintiff's lawyer said is bullshiat, I'm thinking.

What Rayco also didn't do was conduct a federally required background check that's supposed to be done before a firearm can be sold. Coday, with a history of drug abuse and erratic behavior, was a fugitive from the Lower 48 who'd arrived in Alaska not long before the 2006 killing.

"He never would have passed a background check," Choate said.


I'm not sure he wouldn't have. They don't check to see if you have outstanding warrants, just whether you're a convicted felon. You can abuse all the drugs and commit as many misdemeanors as you like without losing the ability to buy a gun. You can be bughouse crazy, too, as long as you've never been involuntarily committed.

Probably what happened is old bugnuts TOLD the gun dealer that he couldn't pass a background check, so he sold him the gun and made up the ridiculous "I turned my back" story. But he probably would have passed if he's not a felon. TFA is unclear on that point.
 
2014-05-09 02:59:56 PM  

LazyMedia: Depends. Being homeless is no legal barrier to gun ownership. Was the guy a convicted felon, or had he been involuntarily committed to a loony bin? If so, then I'd say the gun dealer is screwn, because nobody's buying that "uh, the guy took the gun and left the money when my back was turned" story, even if it were true. Which it isn't, because c'mon, please. If the homeless guy could legally own a gun, then the gun dealer's home free, whether he sold him the gun or it was stolen.


FTA:

What Rayco also didn't do was conduct a federally required background check that's supposed to be done before a firearm can be sold. Coday, with a history of drug abuse and erratic behavior, was a fugitive from the Lower 48 who'd arrived in Alaska not long before the 2006 killing.

Plus the security tapes were conveniently turned off, plus he kept the money, plus he claims his normal business practice is to leave a guy with a sleeping bag around his waist unattended with a gun.  This gun shop owner definitely has some liability here.  In my head the conversation went like this, "Can you pass a background check? No, well I'll go to the back for a few minutes you leave $200 on the counter and walk out with the gun"
 
2014-05-09 03:00:01 PM  
Who gets sued?  That's easy.  The gun manufacturer.

i171.photobucket.com
 
2014-05-09 03:00:55 PM  
Uhhhh...the guy with the gluten allergy who saw this shooting go down?

Yeah, that's what I am going with...
 
2014-05-09 03:01:10 PM  

stevarooni: Kuta: Am I the only one thinking this happens (gun left on counter, owner goes out of sight to do paperwork, customer leaves cash and takes off, no surveillance camera video) with some relative frequency?

That...seems unlikely.  In my experience, when the shop employee called the NICS check it was done right in front of me or (in the case of Cabela's) the gun was taken behind a counter with half a dozen other employees with it.


I can't recall ever buying a gun (and I've bought dozens) where there weren't at least two armed employees in view at all times. That's just common-sense protection against armed robbers.
 
2014-05-09 03:01:28 PM  

ArkAngel: dr_blasto: No lawsuit.

BATFE busts them for straw sale. FBI follows up with fraud.

Police taze everyone involved.

No straw sale. Everyone involved agrees the guy got the gun from that shop. The question is whether he stole it and left money or the place sold it to him


How about the part where the shopkeeper left a customer unsupervised in the store, with an unsecured firearm on the counter? I call Criminal Negligence. Even if there were no customers in the store, you do not leave the room with unsecured firearms laying out in plain view, where someone could come in off the street and snatch them.

Either way, the shop owner is going to pay for his indiscretion.
 
2014-05-09 03:03:01 PM  

LazyMedia: I'm not sure he wouldn't have. They don't check to see if you have outstanding warrants,


Depends, he could have been a fugitive who jumped bail between conviction and sentencing, plus it sounds like he had multiple drug arrests.
 
2014-05-09 03:03:49 PM  

Tom_Slick: LazyMedia: Depends. Being homeless is no legal barrier to gun ownership. Was the guy a convicted felon, or had he been involuntarily committed to a loony bin? If so, then I'd say the gun dealer is screwn, because nobody's buying that "uh, the guy took the gun and left the money when my back was turned" story, even if it were true. Which it isn't, because c'mon, please. If the homeless guy could legally own a gun, then the gun dealer's home free, whether he sold him the gun or it was stolen.

FTA:

What Rayco also didn't do was conduct a federally required background check that's supposed to be done before a firearm can be sold. Coday, with a history of drug abuse and erratic behavior, was a fugitive from the Lower 48 who'd arrived in Alaska not long before the 2006 killing.

Plus the security tapes were conveniently turned off, plus he kept the money, plus he claims his normal business practice is to leave a guy with a sleeping bag around his waist unattended with a gun.  This gun shop owner definitely has some liability here.  In my head the conversation went like this, "Can you pass a background check? No, well I'll go to the back for a few minutes you leave $200 on the counter and walk out with the gun"


I would believe that the filing of the $200 given for the rifle as a "sale" would be sufficient to establish culpability.
 
2014-05-09 03:03:51 PM  

fruitloop: Who gets sued?  That's easy.  The gun manufacturer.

[i171.photobucket.com image 600x753]


That has been impossible to do under federal law since 2005. Thanks, Obama!
 
2014-05-09 03:03:58 PM  
Easy- you go after the deep pockets and hell yes they're liable.


Wrongful death,  negligence + punitive damages....

but this happened back in 2006?  have to wonder what the statute of limitations is on such a case.

usually it's 2-3 years for personal injuries, 1-2 for wrongful death and a little longer for malpractice cases.
sometimes you have provisions that allow for discovery of the wrong -for example a doctor
operates on you and screws up but you don't discover it for 3 years - you generally get another year.  but even then the outer limit isn't generally anything approaching 8 years.
 
2014-05-09 03:04:25 PM  
The shop may owe damages for failing to prevent this theft if a reasonable amount of caution while operating a gun store would have sufficed to prevent the theft. And you could make that argument in a court.
 
2014-05-09 03:04:44 PM  

LazyMedia: They don't check to see if you have outstanding warrants, just whether you're a convicted felon. You can abuse all the drugs and commit as many misdemeanors as you like without losing the ability to buy a gun. You can be bughouse crazy, too, as long as you've never been involuntarily committed.


It's a perfect system, really.
 
2014-05-09 03:04:50 PM  
Retail stores don't report sales to the bank. The reason that's even being brought up is that the author is making the insinuation that Juneau Gun shop sold Coday the gun illegally.
 
2014-05-09 03:05:39 PM  
This happened in 2006? So it was BOB? (Before Obama)

Who cares?
 
2014-05-09 03:05:54 PM  

LazyMedia: Depends. Being homeless is no legal barrier to gun ownership. Was the guy a convicted felon, or had he been involuntarily committed to a loony bin? If so, then I'd say the gun dealer is screwn, because nobody's buying that "uh, the guy took the gun and left the money when my back was turned" story, even if it were true. Which it isn't, because c'mon, please. If the homeless guy could legally own a gun, then the gun dealer's home free, whether he sold him the gun or it was stolen.


even if he was perfectly legal to buy it, you can't just take it, put money down on the table and walk out.  that would be theft no matter what the purchase was but with firearms there are specific federal and state regulations on HOW it has to be purchased.

dealer is "screwed" either way...unless statute of limitation has passed like i just mentioned in my last post.
 
2014-05-09 03:06:27 PM  

Loreweaver: ArkAngel: dr_blasto: No lawsuit.

BATFE busts them for straw sale. FBI follows up with fraud.

Police taze everyone involved.

No straw sale. Everyone involved agrees the guy got the gun from that shop. The question is whether he stole it and left money or the place sold it to him

How about the part where the shopkeeper left a customer unsupervised in the store, with an unsecured firearm on the counter? I call Criminal Negligence. Even if there were no customers in the store, you do not leave the room with unsecured firearms laying out in plain view, where someone could come in off the street and snatch them.

Either way, the shop owner is going to pay for his indiscretion.


That's not a crime. It might be a tort (kind of like having a swimming pool without a fence, creating an attractive nuisance), but it's not a violation of any criminal statute in Alaska.
 
2014-05-09 03:07:34 PM  

sendtodave: Really?

"I can't technically sell this to you, but I'll just turn my back for a second, wink, wink" really does count as plausible deniability?


/you would have to prove that the store owner deliberately and knowingly turned his back so the bum could steal the gun without all that messy paperwork.  Good luck with that.  He will just say the guy asked him for something that was in the back, and when he got to the front again, the gun was gone. Bullshiat, but hard to prove he's lying.
 
2014-05-09 03:08:09 PM  
have to wonder what the statute of limitations

From the article "Results of the long-running case have been mixed so far."

So they may have filed this case quite some time ago.
 
2014-05-09 03:09:14 PM  

Pathman: LazyMedia: Depends. Being homeless is no legal barrier to gun ownership. Was the guy a convicted felon, or had he been involuntarily committed to a loony bin? If so, then I'd say the gun dealer is screwn, because nobody's buying that "uh, the guy took the gun and left the money when my back was turned" story, even if it were true. Which it isn't, because c'mon, please. If the homeless guy could legally own a gun, then the gun dealer's home free, whether he sold him the gun or it was stolen.

even if he was perfectly legal to buy it, you can't just take it, put money down on the table and walk out.  that would be theft no matter what the purchase was but with firearms there are specific federal and state regulations on HOW it has to be purchased.

dealer is "screwed" either way...unless statute of limitation has passed like i just mentioned in my last post.


The dealer could be in trouble with the ATF for deliberately avoiding the background check, but if the guy could have bought the gun legally, he's not going to be liable in the lawsuit about the shooting.
 
2014-05-09 03:09:53 PM  
Jesus christ, he literally did the "I'll just leave this here and turn around, if you and it are gone but money is left behind when I turn back..."  Charge him with the damn murder, he purposely sold a weapon to someone because they both knew the background check would fail.  They contributed to killing a guy.  While you're at it grow up with your laws about guns, the rest of the world is face palming over and over about this silly shiat.
 
2014-05-09 03:11:02 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: sendtodave: Really?

"I can't technically sell this to you, but I'll just turn my back for a second, wink, wink" really does count as plausible deniability?

/you would have to prove that the store owner deliberately and knowingly turned his back so the bum could steal the gun without all that messy paperwork.  Good luck with that.  He will just say the guy asked him for something that was in the back, and when he got to the front again, the gun was gone. Bullshiat, but hard to prove he's lying.


It's a lawsuit; you don't have to overcome reasonable doubt. Just get to a preponderance of the evidence. That's such a ridiculous story; no jury is going to buy that he left a gun out on the counter and left the room with nobody in the store but this homeless guy.
 
2014-05-09 03:12:29 PM  

LazyMedia: Bit'O'Gristle: sendtodave: Really?

"I can't technically sell this to you, but I'll just turn my back for a second, wink, wink" really does count as plausible deniability?

/you would have to prove that the store owner deliberately and knowingly turned his back so the bum could steal the gun without all that messy paperwork.  Good luck with that.  He will just say the guy asked him for something that was in the back, and when he got to the front again, the gun was gone. Bullshiat, but hard to prove he's lying.

It's a lawsuit; you don't have to overcome reasonable doubt. Just get to a preponderance of the evidence. That's such a ridiculous story; no jury is going to buy that he left a gun out on the counter and left the room with nobody in the store but this homeless guy.


Indeed.  Civil cases are far far far far easier to win than criminal cases.
 
2014-05-09 03:14:06 PM  

Pathman: Easy- you go after the deep pockets and hell yes they're liable.


Wrongful death,  negligence + punitive damages....

but this happened back in 2006?  have to wonder what the statute of limitations is on such a case.

usually it's 2-3 years for personal injuries, 1-2 for wrongful death and a little longer for malpractice cases.
sometimes you have provisions that allow for discovery of the wrong -for example a doctoroperates on you and screws up but you don't discover it for 3 years - you generally get another year.  but even then the outer limit isn't generally anything approaching 8 years.


Remember the statute clock only applies to filing the lawsuit, so for example if wrongful death was filed 1 year later, then courts decided it couldn't go to trial until after the the murder trial, the murder trial takes 3-4 years because of motions, psyche evaluations etc, then the new trial starts with more motions, mediation etc. those 8 years can go by fast.
 
2014-05-09 03:14:10 PM  

LazyMedia: fruitloop: Who gets sued?  That's easy.  The gun manufacturer.

[i171.photobucket.com image 600x753]

That has been impossible to do under federal law since 2005. Thanks, Obama!


I, for one, am utterly disgusted that a manufacturer of a legal product cannot be held liable for the criminal actions of an unrelated third party.
 
2014-05-09 03:15:41 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: sendtodave: Really?

"I can't technically sell this to you, but I'll just turn my back for a second, wink, wink" really does count as plausible deniability?

/you would have to prove that the store owner deliberately and knowingly turned his back so the bum could steal the gun without all that messy paperwork.  Good luck with that.  He will just say the guy asked him for something that was in the back, and when he got to the front again, the gun was gone. Bullshiat, but hard to prove he's lying.


The burden of evidence for a civil action is lower than that of a criminal action.
 
2014-05-09 03:17:07 PM  
looking homeless

Standing around, not being in a house?

 Lower 48

And f*ck you.  You're the "Upper 1" nobody likes to admit to being ashamed of let alone connected to, despite it being a fact and it being your fault.
 
2014-05-09 03:21:43 PM  
"oh hello there dirty homeless man wrapped in a sleeping bag wrapped in a garbage bag! would you like to hold this firearm while i dismiss everyone else from the store and then go into the back to get paperwork for some reason?"
-responsible gun owner
 
2014-05-09 03:22:13 PM  

LazyMedia: Depends. Being homeless is no legal barrier to gun ownership. Was the guy a convicted felon, or had he been involuntarily committed to a loony bin? If so, then I'd say the gun dealer is screwn, because nobody's buying that "uh, the guy took the gun and left the money when my back was turned" story, even if it were true. Which it isn't, because c'mon, please. If the homeless guy could legally own a gun, then the gun dealer's home free, whether he sold him the gun or it was stolen.


In fairness, I've done this with a shopping cart (we needed to get some truck batteries down a long pier, and there were no carts available, so we had to improvise).
 
2014-05-09 03:23:27 PM  

LazyMedia: Something the plaintiff's lawyer said is bullshiat, I'm thinking.

What Rayco also didn't do was conduct a federally required background check that's supposed to be done before a firearm can be sold. Coday, with a history of drug abuse and erratic behavior, was a fugitive from the Lower 48 who'd arrived in Alaska not long before the 2006 killing.

"He never would have passed a background check," Choate said.

I'm not sure he wouldn't have. They don't check to see if you have outstanding warrants, just whether you're a convicted felon. You can abuse all the drugs and commit as many misdemeanors as you like without losing the ability to buy a gun. You can be bughouse crazy, too, as long as you've never been involuntarily committed.

Probably what happened is old bugnuts TOLD the gun dealer that he couldn't pass a background check, so he sold him the gun and made up the ridiculous "I turned my back" story. But he probably would have passed if he's not a felon. TFA is unclear on that point.


Hmmmmm:
http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms/firearms-industry/firearms-how-i de ntify-prohibited-persons

The Gun Control Act (GCA) makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms. 18 USC 922(g). Transfers of firearms to any such prohibited persons are also unlawful. 18 USC 922(d).

These categories include any person:
Under indictment or information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
who is a fugitive from justice;

who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
who is an illegal alien;
who has been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions;
who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;

who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (enacted by the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, effective September 30, 1996). 18 USC 922(g) and (n).

If you have a warrant out or a restraining order AND the court has filed it, you cannot purchase a gun. Plenty of misdemeanors prevent you from buying a gun. Obviously there are holes there with drug/alcohol use and mental health, but it's not like you get a carte blanche to commit crimes and retain the ability to pass a 4473. An arrest for drugs is likely to get you delayed, at the very least, if not outright denied. Medicinal MJ users are supposed to be denied.

This guy was extremely negligent/idiotic at the very least.
 
2014-05-09 03:25:18 PM  

sprawl15: "oh hello there dirty homeless man wrapped in a sleeping bag wrapped in a garbage bag! Do you have $200? OK put it on the counter and hold this firearm while i dismiss everyone else from the store and then go into the back to get paperwork for some reason?"
-responsible gun owner


FTFY
 
2014-05-09 03:26:22 PM  

Tom_Slick: sprawl15: "oh hello there dirty homeless man wrapped in a sleeping bag wrapped in a garbage bag! Do you have $200? OK put it on the counter and hold this firearm while i dismiss everyone else from the store and then go into the back to get paperwork for some reason?"
-responsible gun owner

FTFY


oh no that is impossible as it would be irresponsible
 
2014-05-09 03:28:12 PM  
Simone Kim, a young Anchorage man

wat?
 
2014-05-09 03:29:00 PM  

LazyMedia: Loreweaver: ArkAngel: dr_blasto: No lawsuit.

BATFE busts them for straw sale. FBI follows up with fraud.

Police taze everyone involved.

No straw sale. Everyone involved agrees the guy got the gun from that shop. The question is whether he stole it and left money or the place sold it to him

How about the part where the shopkeeper left a customer unsupervised in the store, with an unsecured firearm on the counter? I call Criminal Negligence. Even if there were no customers in the store, you do not leave the room with unsecured firearms laying out in plain view, where someone could come in off the street and snatch them.

Either way, the shop owner is going to pay for his indiscretion.

That's not a crime. It might be a tort (kind of like having a swimming pool without a fence, creating an attractive nuisance), but it's not a violation of any criminal statute in Alaska.


Not sure if "Attractive Nuisance" would be a better band name or album title.
 
2014-05-09 03:31:16 PM  

Fark like a Barsoomian: Simone Kim, a young Anchorage man

wat?


Italian spelling of Simon
 
2014-05-09 03:32:59 PM  
Man steals gun, shoots someone, gets sued.

That's it.
 
2014-05-09 03:35:59 PM  

EdNortonsTwin: Man steals gun, shoots someone, gets sued.

That's it.


What paper work were you doing in the back any ways?  That's the really important part of your story that's missing, the part where you left a homeless man alone with the gun 'to go do some paperwork'.
 
2014-05-09 03:38:00 PM  

dr_blasto: No lawsuit.

BATFE busts them for straw sale. FBI follows up with fraud.

Police taze everyone involved.


If the shop reported the gun stolen then it was stolen.  If not it seems like a classic straw sale to me.

EdNortonsTwin: Man steals gun, shoots someone, gets sued.

That's it.


You left out "goes to jail".  I'm sure it fits in there somewhere.
 
2014-05-09 03:41:02 PM  
I think "Sue them all" may actually be the correct answer in this case.
 
2014-05-09 03:42:26 PM  

BumpInTheNight: EdNortonsTwin: Man steals gun, shoots someone, gets sued.

That's it.

What paper work were you doing in the back any ways?  That's the really important part of your story that's missing, the part where you left a homeless man alone with the gun 'to go do some paperwork'.


What paperwork he was doing in the back should be irrelevant. Livig the person unattended with an unsecured weapon is a huge issue and should bear some liability.
 
2014-05-09 03:47:13 PM  
The bank. That's where the money is.
 
2014-05-09 03:49:32 PM  
My fellow gun owners can attest, gun shop employes would leave you alone with their 14 year old daughter before they would leave you alone with a firearm.

Let's see:
Possibility 1: Gun store worker left rough looking customer alone with a firearm.

Possibility 2: Gun store worker sold gun to man without a 4473 and it came back to bite them on the ass.
 
2014-05-09 03:51:44 PM  

BumpInTheNight: EdNortonsTwin: Man steals gun, shoots someone, gets sued.

That's it.

What paper work were you doing in the back any ways?  That's the really important part of your story that's missing, the part where you left a homeless man alone with the gun 'to go do some paperwork'.


Suddenly I'm the dealer in question - that's a leap.

Not sure about Alaska, but there's sales and transfer paper-work and paper work that goes to the DoJ.

Again, this is Alaska, there's more guns and bears than people up there.

Was the guy wearing a shirt that says I'm a homeless fugitive that wants to murder someone?  I've been to Alaska a couple times - bearded and a bit disheveled isn't uncommon.

Have you been in a gun shop?  It wouldn't be hard to smash and grab either.

With the limited info we have here, I don't see blaming the victim of robbery as making much sense.
 
2014-05-09 03:51:44 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: [optimalhumanmodulation.files.wordpress.com image 209x111]


First-rate fantastic funny gif.
 
2014-05-09 03:51:45 PM  
Well I can hope that justice gets done in this case.  In whatever form it will take.

Of course I'd also hope that people could get over their own arrogant BS enough to not make several hundred Fark posts a day about how awful it is that American's have a certain freedom.  Citing the fact that one out of millions does something bad with it.

But as they say... 'Wish in one hand, shait in the other'.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-05-09 03:52:07 PM  
This appears to be the Supreme Court case from last year sending the case back for trial: http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=S-14077&s=ak&d=59504. Basically, if the gun was really stolen the dealer is off the hook but if the "theft" was sale in disguise he's screwed.  The plaintiffs relied on an expert witness saying it looked like a sale to him.
 
2014-05-09 03:53:33 PM  

EdNortonsTwin: Suddenly I'm the dealer in question - that's a leap.

Not sure about Alaska, but there's sales and transfer paper-work and paper work that goes to the DoJ.

Again, this is Alaska, there's more guns and bears than people up there.

Was the guy wearing a shirt that says I'm a homeless fugitive that wants to murder someone? I've been to Alaska a couple times - bearded and a bit disheveled isn't uncommon.

Have you been in a gun shop? It wouldn't be hard to smash and grab either.

With the limited info we have here, I don't see blaming the victim of robbery as making much sense.


I was implying you're ignoring a rather key part of his innocence:  Did he or did he not report the robbery?  He didn't.
 
2014-05-09 03:57:03 PM  

BumpInTheNight: EdNortonsTwin: Suddenly I'm the dealer in question - that's a leap.

Not sure about Alaska, but there's sales and transfer paper-work and paper work that goes to the DoJ.

Again, this is Alaska, there's more guns and bears than people up there.

Was the guy wearing a shirt that says I'm a homeless fugitive that wants to murder someone? I've been to Alaska a couple times - bearded and a bit disheveled isn't uncommon.

Have you been in a gun shop? It wouldn't be hard to smash and grab either.

With the limited info we have here, I don't see blaming the victim of robbery as making much sense.

I was implying you're ignoring a rather key part of his innocence:  Did he or did he not report the robbery?  He didn't.


Let's check the case!

II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. Facts
[...]
Driver asked Coxe if he had sold Coday the rifle. Coxe verified the rifle was missing and then drove his truck around the neighboring area in an unsuccessful attempt to find Coday. At some point either Coxe or an employee called the Juneau Police Department. Coxe reported the rifle stolen, and on the advice of a police officer, deposited the $200 in the bank as a sale
.
 
2014-05-09 03:59:25 PM  

redmid17: Let's check the case!

II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. Facts
[...]
Driver asked Coxe if he had sold Coday the rifle. Coxe verified the rifle was missing and then drove his truck around the neighboring area in an unsuccessful attempt to find Coday. At some point either Coxe or an employee called the Juneau Police Department. Coxe reported the rifle stolen, and on the advice of a police officer, deposited the $200 in the bank as a sale.


Oh dear, well that's what I get for trusting website news reporting.  Okay I agree the store did a reasonable job.
 
2014-05-09 04:00:25 PM  

BumpInTheNight: EdNortonsTwin: Suddenly I'm the dealer in question - that's a leap.

Not sure about Alaska, but there's sales and transfer paper-work and paper work that goes to the DoJ.

Again, this is Alaska, there's more guns and bears than people up there.

Was the guy wearing a shirt that says I'm a homeless fugitive that wants to murder someone? I've been to Alaska a couple times - bearded and a bit disheveled isn't uncommon.

Have you been in a gun shop? It wouldn't be hard to smash and grab either.

With the limited info we have here, I don't see blaming the victim of robbery as making much sense.

I was implying you're ignoring a rather key part of his innocence:  Did he or did he not report the robbery?  He didn't.


BumpInTheNight: EdNortonsTwin: Suddenly I'm the dealer in question - that's a leap.

Not sure about Alaska, but there's sales and transfer paper-work and paper work that goes to the DoJ.

Again, this is Alaska, there's more guns and bears than people up there.

Was the guy wearing a shirt that says I'm a homeless fugitive that wants to murder someone? I've been to Alaska a couple times - bearded and a bit disheveled isn't uncommon.

Have you been in a gun shop? It wouldn't be hard to smash and grab either.

With the limited info we have here, I don't see blaming the victim of robbery as making much sense.

I was implying you're ignoring a rather key part of his innocence:  Did he or did he not report the robbery?  He didn't.


I don't see where the article said he didn't report the theft.  If he didn't and rang up the sale then I would treat this as an illegal sale and the dealer should indeed be up-shiat creek.
 
2014-05-09 04:01:36 PM  

redmid17: BumpInTheNight: EdNortonsTwin: Suddenly I'm the dealer in question - that's a leap.

Not sure about Alaska, but there's sales and transfer paper-work and paper work that goes to the DoJ.

Again, this is Alaska, there's more guns and bears than people up there.

Was the guy wearing a shirt that says I'm a homeless fugitive that wants to murder someone? I've been to Alaska a couple times - bearded and a bit disheveled isn't uncommon.

Have you been in a gun shop? It wouldn't be hard to smash and grab either.

With the limited info we have here, I don't see blaming the victim of robbery as making much sense.

I was implying you're ignoring a rather key part of his innocence:  Did he or did he not report the robbery?  He didn't.

Let's check the case!

II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. Facts
[...]
Driver asked Coxe if he had sold Coday the rifle. Coxe verified the rifle was missing and then drove his truck around the neighboring area in an unsuccessful attempt to find Coday. At some point either Coxe or an employee called the Juneau Police Department. Coxe reported the rifle stolen, and on the advice of a police officer, deposited the $200 in the bank as a sale.


*sigh*
 
2014-05-09 04:04:15 PM  

redmid17: BumpInTheNight: EdNortonsTwin: Suddenly I'm the dealer in question - that's a leap.

Not sure about Alaska, but there's sales and transfer paper-work and paper work that goes to the DoJ.

Again, this is Alaska, there's more guns and bears than people up there.

Was the guy wearing a shirt that says I'm a homeless fugitive that wants to murder someone? I've been to Alaska a couple times - bearded and a bit disheveled isn't uncommon.

Have you been in a gun shop? It wouldn't be hard to smash and grab either.

With the limited info we have here, I don't see blaming the victim of robbery as making much sense.

I was implying you're ignoring a rather key part of his innocence:  Did he or did he not report the robbery?  He didn't.

Let's check the case!

II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. Facts
[...]
Driver asked Coxe if he had sold Coday the rifle. Coxe verified the rifle was missing and then drove his truck around the neighboring area in an unsuccessful attempt to find Coday. At some point either Coxe or an employee called the Juneau Police Department. Coxe reported the rifle stolen, and on the advice of a police officer, deposited the $200 in the bank as a sale.


Was Mr. Coxe able to identify the police officer who supposedly provided that advice? I must express disbelief that a police officer would not "advise" Mr. Coxe to turn over the money to the police as "evidence", with an offer to personally handle the "evidence".
 
2014-05-09 04:07:04 PM  

BumpInTheNight: redmid17: Let's check the case!

II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. Facts
[...]
Driver asked Coxe if he had sold Coday the rifle. Coxe verified the rifle was missing and then drove his truck around the neighboring area in an unsuccessful attempt to find Coday. At some point either Coxe or an employee called the Juneau Police Department. Coxe reported the rifle stolen, and on the advice of a police officer, deposited the $200 in the bank as a sale.

Oh dear, well that's what I get for trusting website news reporting.  Okay I agree the store did a reasonable job.


Yeah I was on the fence, leaning toward punishment, until I read the case from someone's post. He reported the theft. The cop probably thought "Look this guy is a drifter and we'll never catch him." and told him take the money. It probably should have been kept as evidence, but with no video evidence, no ID shown, and the guy having a headstart it doesn't seem like something that would have been solved quickly or at all.
 
2014-05-09 04:09:01 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: [optimalhumanmodulation.files.wordpress.com image 209x111]


media2.giphy.comimg.fark.net

"That magnificent b*tch."                                                     "MIC DROP, HIER KOMMT!"
 
2014-05-09 04:10:03 PM  
If he filed a police report saying the gun was stolen, the police should have kept the money as evidence.
 
2014-05-09 04:17:31 PM  

BumpInTheNight: EdNortonsTwin: Man steals gun, shoots someone, gets sued.

That's it.

What paper work were you doing in the back any ways?  That's the really important part of your story that's missing, the part where you left a homeless man alone with the gun 'to go do some paperwork'.


I dunno, maybe calling in the background check?

It's Alaska, lots of people look like that in Alaska.  I doubt he said he was homeless.

And it's a small town, only 32,000 people.  Doing business in a small town isn't the same as a big city, you don't always have somebody watching to make sure the customer doesn't steal anything, especially when it's a small store with nobody but the owner working.

And the store owner reported the gun as stolen.  What was he supposed to do with the $200, burn it?  He put it in the bank.

And no gun dealer is going to risk his license for someone he doesn't know, certainly not for a $200 sale.  That guy could have been undercover ATF looking to make a bust.  I'm sure there probably are some who might take a risk for a friend, but not for a stranger.

So no, the story is completely believable.  Small town business, overly trustful owner (he's probably been doing business like that for 20 years or more), and some guy walks out with the gun, dropping $200 on the counter.

Here's the owner, with a different customer:

images.morris.com

Yes, the old guy.  And that customer looks kind of homeless too.
 
2014-05-09 04:29:40 PM  

gunrunner: If he filed a police report saying the gun was stolen, the police should have kept the money as evidence.


Evidence of what?  It's $200 cash.  You will not get a useful fingerprint or useful DNA from cash, it's been through too many hands.  You can't distinguish it from any other cash other than by the serial number.  The only reason the cops would want to keep the cash is to try to seize it at some point if they're typical thief cops, but if you got a good one, they'd say record the serial numbers and deposit it so you'll be out less from the theft.  As far as that goes, nobody saw this guy put the cash down, you can't prove that it was his.
 
2014-05-09 04:31:23 PM  

DarkVader: So no, the story is completely believable. Small town business, overly trustful owner (he's probably been doing business like that for 20 years or more), and some guy walks out with the gun, dropping $200 on the counter.


What?  You mean all legal gun dealers are not actually living in a hidden run down corner of the bad part of down?  And he's NOT actually a skin head with prison tattoos?  No confederate flags or swastikas all over every surface?  That can't be true!

Actually no, I ISN'T true.  You should see my ow favorite gun store.  Nestled between two law offices in the dead center of a college town.  The owner is actually an ex lawyer himself that decided to take up business.  Good stand up guy too.
 
2014-05-09 04:38:03 PM  

NightOwl2255: My fellow gun owners can attest, gun shop employes would leave you alone with their 14 year old daughter before they would leave you alone with a firearm.

Let's see:
Possibility 1: Gun store worker left rough looking customer alone with a firearm.

Possibility 2: Gun store worker sold gun to man without a 4473 and it came back to bite them on the ass.


I'm sure this happened just the one time.
 
2014-05-09 04:53:38 PM  

redmid17: LazyMedia: Something the plaintiff's lawyer said is bullshiat, I'm thinking.

What Rayco also didn't do was conduct a federally required background check that's supposed to be done before a firearm can be sold. Coday, with a history of drug abuse and erratic behavior, was a fugitive from the Lower 48 who'd arrived in Alaska not long before the 2006 killing.

"He never would have passed a background check," Choate said.

I'm not sure he wouldn't have. They don't check to see if you have outstanding warrants, just whether you're a convicted felon. You can abuse all the drugs and commit as many misdemeanors as you like without losing the ability to buy a gun. You can be bughouse crazy, too, as long as you've never been involuntarily committed.

Probably what happened is old bugnuts TOLD the gun dealer that he couldn't pass a background check, so he sold him the gun and made up the ridiculous "I turned my back" story. But he probably would have passed if he's not a felon. TFA is unclear on that point.

Hmmmmm:
http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms/firearms-industry/firearms-how-i de ntify-prohibited-persons

The Gun Control Act (GCA) makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms. 18 USC 922(g). Transfers of firearms to any such prohibited persons are also unlawful. 18 USC 922(d).

These categories include any person:
Under indictment or information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
who is a fugitive from justice;
who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
who is an illegal alien;
who has been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions;
who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassin ...


Oh, I appear to have been talking out of my ass again. I didn't know the list of who can't buy a gun was so comprehensive. Tyranny!
 
2014-05-09 04:54:48 PM  

DarkVader: And the store owner reported the gun as stolen.


i can't seem to find this backed up anywhere. i've seen plenty of places where he said it was stolen after the shooting, but no reports. i have seen that the store owner said two different surveillance systems failed to catch anything
 
2014-05-09 04:58:30 PM  

sprawl15: i can't seem to find this backed up anywhere.


disregard, forgot to scroll up
 
2014-05-09 05:01:41 PM  

Tom_Slick: Pathman: Easy- you go after the deep pockets and hell yes they're liable.


Wrongful death,  negligence + punitive damages....

but this happened back in 2006?  have to wonder what the statute of limitations is on such a case.

usually it's 2-3 years for personal injuries, 1-2 for wrongful death and a little longer for malpractice cases.
sometimes you have provisions that allow for discovery of the wrong -for example a doctoroperates on you and screws up but you don't discover it for 3 years - you generally get another year.  but even then the outer limit isn't generally anything approaching 8 years.

Remember the statute clock only applies to filing the lawsuit, so for example if wrongful death was filed 1 year later, then courts decided it couldn't go to trial until after the the murder trial, the murder trial takes 3-4 years because of motions, psyche evaluations etc, then the new trial starts with more motions, mediation etc. those 8 years can go by fast.


what about repose?  (i'm not a lawyer)
does a 4 year statute of repose on, for example, medical malpractice toll while the trial sits in scheduling?

i suppose it would have to otherwise that would be unbelievably unfair.
 
2014-05-09 05:06:45 PM  
what a  clusterfark.   The gunshop owner screwed up all he had to do is pocket the $200 and report the gun stolen and he would probably be in the clear.   But he banked it as  sale which in all likely hood screws him over in court and he knows it which is why he was trying to get the case thrown out before it went to trial.
 
2014-05-09 05:07:26 PM  

LazyMedia: Oh, I appear to have been talking out of my ass again. I didn't know the list of who can't buy a gun was so comprehensive. Tyranny!


Well no... that's not tyranny any more than depriving a felon of his right to free movement is tyranny.
 
2014-05-09 05:09:42 PM  
2 People should end up in jail here, the shooter and the guy that sold the gun.

As soon as he deposited that money as a sale he entered into that transaction.

I'd also like to hear from local law enforcement on this. When he called the police to say the gun was stolen did he also tell the police that money was left on the counter? If yes, why would that have not ended up in evidence instead of his bank account? If no, could they also get this a-hole on obstruction of justice/witholding evidence?
 
2014-05-09 05:11:35 PM  

grimlock1972: what a  clusterfark.   The gunshop owner screwed up all he had to do is pocket the $200 and report the gun stolen and he would probably be in the clear.   But he banked it as  sale which in all likely hood screws him over in court and he knows it which is why he was trying to get the case thrown out before it went to trial.


Well another employee found the $200, so it wasn't just the bank manager who knew, and a police officer told him to bank the $200 (likely because the crime would likely not be solved and the money was useless as evidence).
 
2014-05-09 05:18:18 PM  

redmid17: grimlock1972: what a  clusterfark.   The gunshop owner screwed up all he had to do is pocket the $200 and report the gun stolen and he would probably be in the clear.   But he banked it as  sale which in all likely hood screws him over in court and he knows it which is why he was trying to get the case thrown out before it went to trial.

Well another employee found the $200, so it wasn't just the bank manager who knew, and a police officer told him to bank the $200 (likely because the crime would likely not be solved and the money was useless as evidence).


Just because tells you to do something does not necessarily make it the right course of action, Cops while generally good at enforcing the laws are usually not experts on all parts of it.

The gun shop owner better hope he can ID the cop and get the cop to testify that he told him to do what he did.

Still just the fact he left an unsecured gun where it could be walked off with could qualify as negligence.

I feel the owner will lose the lawsuit.
 
2014-05-09 05:19:27 PM  

Enemabag Jones: Why would a homeless man want a rifle?

They are hard to hide.

It makes no sense.


.22 Long Rifle is the size of the round.  It's a target pistol he bought.
 
2014-05-09 05:24:27 PM  

grimlock1972: redmid17: grimlock1972: what a  clusterfark.   The gunshop owner screwed up all he had to do is pocket the $200 and report the gun stolen and he would probably be in the clear.   But he banked it as  sale which in all likely hood screws him over in court and he knows it which is why he was trying to get the case thrown out before it went to trial.

Well another employee found the $200, so it wasn't just the bank manager who knew, and a police officer told him to bank the $200 (likely because the crime would likely not be solved and the money was useless as evidence).

Just because tells you to do something does not necessarily make it the right course of action, Cops while generally good at enforcing the laws are usually not experts on all parts of it.

The gun shop owner better hope he can ID the cop and get the cop to testify that he told him to do what he did.

Still just the fact he left an unsecured gun where it could be walked off with could qualify as negligence.

I feel the owner will lose the lawsuit.


Those are in the facts of the case, so I doubt it's in dispute. However I tend to agree that walking off with a gun in the hands of a customer is negligent.
 
2014-05-09 05:26:57 PM  

GirlScoutSniper: Enemabag Jones: Why would a homeless man want a rifle?

They are hard to hide.

It makes no sense.

.22 Long Rifle is the size of the round.  It's a target pistol he bought.


No actually the article says he had a rifle.  Did you read that somewhere else?  You're right about .22 LR or Long Rifle.  It's a very common round that can be fired  both in some pistols and some rifles.  It's also rather low powered.  Really used for 'plinking' or hunting very very small game.  Squirrels for instance.  Still fully capable of being lethal but you have to hit someone in the head or in the heart to have a significant chance of lethality.
 
2014-05-09 05:35:47 PM  

Noishkel: GirlScoutSniper: Enemabag Jones: Why would a homeless man want a rifle?

They are hard to hide.

It makes no sense.

.22 Long Rifle is the size of the round.  It's a target pistol he bought.

No actually the article says he had a rifle.


Ah... I don't know how I got it into my head it was a target pistol, even though, after rereading, I see it says "rifle" I don't know how many times!  Thanks.
 
2014-05-09 05:38:03 PM  
Hey... has anyone read the Wikipedia page for this Jason Coday guy?  He was already a fugitive on the run when he stole the rifle.  Apparently he had skipped town on a collection of charges.  One of them being illegal weapons possession.  Even better is that when he lose in the killing of this guy in Alaska... he HEAD BUTTED his defense attorney!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Coday
 
2014-05-09 05:39:00 PM  

GirlScoutSniper: Ah... I don't know how I got it into my head it was a target pistol, even though, after rereading, I see it says "rifle" I don't know how many times! Thanks.


*dips an invisible cowboy hat.*  No worries.
 
2014-05-09 05:39:05 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Because People in power are Stupid: [optimalhumanmodulation.files.wordpress.com image 209x111]

Pffft...9mm...


And an Uzi, too. She's lucky if she'shiatting the air.
 
2014-05-09 05:39:42 PM  
Ok...

Anyway.
 
2014-05-09 05:41:36 PM  
Who gets sued? Obama obviously.  Thanks Obama!
 
2014-05-09 05:44:10 PM  

ElLoco: Ow! That was my feelings!: Because People in power are Stupid: [optimalhumanmodulation.files.wordpress.com image 209x111]

Pffft...9mm...

And an Uzi, too. She's lucky if she'shiatting the air.


Those aren't Uzi's.  They're MACs.

http://world.guns.ru/smg/usa/ingram-mac-m10-and-m11-e.html
 
2014-05-09 05:46:18 PM  

voran: Who gets sued? Obama obviously.  Thanks Obama!


I'm ok with this.
 
2014-05-09 05:54:01 PM  

Noishkel: ElLoco: Ow! That was my feelings!: Because People in power are Stupid: [optimalhumanmodulation.files.wordpress.com image 209x111]

Pffft...9mm...

And an Uzi, too. She's lucky if she'shiatting the air.

Those aren't Uzi's.  They're MACs.

http://world.guns.ru/smg/usa/ingram-mac-m10-and-m11-e.html


Doh. I knew that, hence the filterated accuracy comment. Had the wife on the cell phone and my parents on another trying to coordinate a meeting in Arlington. I could have typed 'shotguns' and wouldn't have noticed at the time. :(
 
2014-05-09 05:59:13 PM  

ArkAngel: dr_blasto: No lawsuit.

BATFE busts them for straw sale. FBI follows up with fraud.

Police taze everyone involved.

No straw sale. Everyone involved agrees the guy got the gun from that shop. The question is whether he stole it and left money or the place sold it to him


If the gun had a price tag and he paid the labeled price plus taxes, its hard to argue theft. Clearly the intent of both parties was a sale. If the store's "system" failed to put controls on the sale to gather required information before the sale, well, that's a fault on the store.

No different than the unmanned vegetable cart on the side of the road with prices posted and a bucket for the money. That's the seller's design, not the buyers design.
 
2014-05-09 06:01:05 PM  

itsaidwhat: ArkAngel: dr_blasto: No lawsuit.

BATFE busts them for straw sale. FBI follows up with fraud.

Police taze everyone involved.

No straw sale. Everyone involved agrees the guy got the gun from that shop. The question is whether he stole it and left money or the place sold it to him

If the gun had a price tag and he paid the labeled price plus taxes, its hard to argue theft. Clearly the intent of both parties was a sale. If the store's "system" failed to put controls on the sale to gather required information before the sale, well, that's a fault on the store.

No different than the unmanned vegetable cart on the side of the road with prices posted and a bucket for the money. That's the seller's design, not the buyers design.


The problem being that you need to fill out a 4473 before you can leave the gun store AND no one can prove that the guy left the $200. It was cash, the video cameras weren't working, and no one else was in the room with him.
 
2014-05-09 06:04:38 PM  
Does it happen to mention anywhere how a homeless person was able to have $200 in cash...?
 
2014-05-09 06:10:26 PM  
Gun stores don't just leave guns sitting out with homeless people.  When your story is "sorry, my bad, I left a gun with the homeless guy, and he gave me money, and there is no video of it despite my security system", it makes it very difficult to believe your BS.
 
2014-05-09 06:13:54 PM  
Something is fishy about this story.  Kim could see Russia from his house but couldn't see the guy sneaking up behind him with a rifle in broad daylight on a busy street?
 
2014-05-09 06:19:15 PM  
Sounds like a false flag to distract us from zombie Nazi Lenin.
 
2014-05-09 06:22:52 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: I don't get it. Where were the good guys with the guns to stop the bad guy with the gun?


Florida.
 
2014-05-09 06:24:15 PM  

LazyMedia: I'm not sure he wouldn't have. They don't check to see if you have outstanding warrants, just whether you're a convicted felon. You can abuse all the drugs and commit as many misdemeanors as you like without losing the ability to buy a gun. You can be bughouse crazy, too, as long as you've never been involuntarily committed.


Being a fugitive is also a disqualifier.

netweavr: Wow the store owner's story sounds like the kind of bullshiat a 5 year old would come up with.


No kidding.

I find the idea of a homeless person who can't pass a background check actually paying for a handgun when he's stealing it unbelievable.  Well, unless he's also severely mentally ill in a very specific way.

Instead I think it's far more likely that the store owner sold the gun to him for cash off the books, in which case he's a dumbass for depositing the money.

redmid17: Let's check the case!

II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. Facts
[...]
Driver asked Coxe if he had sold Coday the rifle. Coxe verified the rifle was missing and then drove his truck around the neighboring area in an unsuccessful attempt to find Coday. At some point either Coxe or an employee called the Juneau Police Department. Coxe reported the rifle stolen, and on the advice of a police officer, deposited the $200 in the bank as a sale.


...On the other hand, especially if this advice was documented it completely flips my decision and chalk it up to 'the weirdness of life'.  Perhaps Coday was hoping that the money would prevent Coxe from reporting it.

As for driving around looking for the bum, I'll point out that despite being the capital of Alaska it only has a population of ~32k and there are no roads connecting it to the rest of the state.  It's not like the dude could have gone far...
 
2014-05-09 06:28:22 PM  

JuggleGeek: Gun stores don't just leave guns sitting out with homeless people.  When your story is "sorry, my bad, I left a gun with the homeless guy, and he gave me money, and there is no video of it despite my security system", it makes it very difficult to believe your BS.


Well we really don't know just how this store is set up.  My favorite shop sometimes will have a rifle on the counter on display.  They also have three to four armed sales people there at any one time.  Most gun shops keep their inventory on a shell behind the counter.  Far out of reach from someone that might just reach over, snag one, and run.  We can really only theorize how this happened.

Personally I'm betting the killer just stepped around the nearest edge and snagged the rifle while no one was looking, and moved.  In any even it's going to be a fight to prove a legitimate claim of negligence on the part of the shop owner.  Not without really good evidence to support it.  Especially in a state like Alaska.
 
2014-05-09 06:48:27 PM  

grimlock1972: The gun shop owner better hope he can ID the cop and get the cop to testify that he told him to do what he did.


Juneau has  52officers and 40 civilians.  There's a very good chance that the officer can be found, will remember the conversation, and will be willing to testify.

Noishkel: Personally I'm betting the killer just stepped around the nearest edge and snagged the rifle while no one was looking, and moved.  In any even it's going to be a fight to prove a legitimate claim of negligence on the part of the shop owner.  Not without really good evidence to support it.  Especially in a state like Alaska.


There are oddities, but he did formally report it stolen within a reasonable period of time.

JuggleGeek: Gun stores don't just leave guns sitting out with homeless people.  When your story is "sorry, my bad, I left a gun with the homeless guy, and he gave me money, and there is no video of it despite my security system", it makes it very difficult to believe your BS.


It's hard to seperate the homeless from the homed up in Alaska just by visual identification.  It's a rather harsh environment for most of the year.
 
2014-05-09 06:48:59 PM  

Danger Mouse: If the gun costs 100 dollars more than the bullet,  and the total was $110 dollars how much was the gun?


/ I know this....


Before or after the Five Fingered Discount Double-Check ?
 
2014-05-09 06:56:21 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: I don't get it. Where were the good guys with the guns to stop the bad guy with the gun?


All the good guys followed the laws that this man was avoiding.
 
2014-05-09 07:06:33 PM  
Nobody did the "leave money on the counter" BS.  This was CASH CHANGING HANDS, not some kind of honor system among thieves.

If you are going to make a straw sale you at least did right by not doing it on camera, or destroying the video footage from that day.  But don't lie to people with stuff as stupid as "I went to the back and it was gone when I came back to the counter, but $200 was there!"  Take the $200 cash that the guy gave you for an illegal gun purchase and use it for petty cash stuff in your regular life, don't put it in a bank deposit where people can examine later and ask what that extra $200 was from since it isn't on your store receipts for the day.

Let the guy take the gun, and report it stolen MUCH LATER when you are doing a monthly inventory or something and say you don't know where it went.  Or if ATF/police comes asking, look around and discover it to be lost at the point they are asking you about it.  Play stupid.  If this is your first offense you likely get to pay a fine and keep your FFL.
 
2014-05-09 07:09:40 PM  
Noishkel ,
GirlScoutSniper: Enemabag Jones: Why would a homeless man want a rifle?
They are hard to hide.
It makes no sense.
.22 Long Rifle is the size of the round. It's a target pistol he bought.
No actually the article says he had a rifle. Did you read that somewhere else? You're right about .22 LR or Long Rifle. It's a very common round that can be fired both in some pistols and some rifles. It's also rather low powered. Really used for 'plinking' or hunting very very small game. Squirrels for instance. Still fully capable of being lethal but you have to hit someone in the head or in the heart to have a significant chance of lethality.


I take it back. I am applying city logic to an Alaskan city of 30,000. He probably wanted a varmit rifle to feed himself.
 
2014-05-09 07:17:10 PM  

Enemabag Jones: I take it back. I am applying city logic to an Alaskan city of 30,000. He probably wanted a varmit rifle to feed himself.


Well no there's other news stories connected to the killed that suggest he was just a violence and crazy asshole.  He was already a fugitive as said on the wiki page about him.
 
2014-05-09 07:38:08 PM  

itsaidwhat: If the gun had a price tag and he paid the labeled price plus taxes, its hard to argue theft. Clearly the intent of both parties was a sale. If the store's "system" failed to put controls on the sale to gather required information before the sale, well, that's a fault on the store.

No different than the unmanned vegetable cart on the side of the road with prices posted and a bucket for the money. That's the seller's design, not the buyers design.


Now, I don't actually know that the price of the gun plus tax wasn't $200, but how likely is that?  It's apparently not in dispute that what was left was exactly $200.  I'd say that given the amount left, it's highly unlikely that the store owner intended to make a sale, even though the convicted murderer likely intended it to be a purchase.

And if the owner didn't intend it to be a sale, it wasn't a sale.

Now you might suggest that the owner didn't properly secure his firearms.  But keep in mind that Alaska doesn't have firearm storage laws.  The ATF has suggestions for dealers, but no requirement other than that a stolen firearm must be reported within 48 hours.  So there is no legal requirement that merchandise cannot be left out on the counter, and I have in fact been in small town gun stores where there are guns on the counter.

There is certainly no indication that a purchase could be made at this store by picking up a gun and putting money in a bucket.
 
2014-05-09 07:45:37 PM  
Other than leaving a person alone in the store, which is bad judgment but not illegal, I'm trying to figure out what the store did wrong.

Although the "customer" left money on the counter, he hadn't gone through any of the background checks or other items that would make it a legitimate transaction. Therefore the store did the right thing in reporting what happened to the police.

Unless the police requested the cash as evidence or otherwise told them that they were not entitled to the cash, then the store had no choice but to make a deposit to the bank or the employees would be stealing money from the business. Not to mention that otherwise they had no way to recoup the cost of the rifle.

There's nothing to indicate that they reported it stolen and filed an insurance claim so there's no fraud.

How is the store responsible for the actions of a thief?

If I take a pillow from Walmart and leave $10 on the counter to cover the cost but don't go through the registers or check out with a cashier, is Walmart then responsible if I go out and smother somebody to death with the pillow?

Making the dealer responsible seems like a hell of a stretch in logic to me, especially since they reported the gun being taken to the police.
 
2014-05-09 08:13:45 PM  

Hermione_Granger: Making the dealer responsible seems like a hell of a stretch in logic to me, especially since they reported the gun being taken to the police.


Well the thing is there's a major difference between civil and criminal courts.  Obviously there's no way in hell they could try to go after the dealer from a criminal charge standpoint.  But the civil courts have a lot more leeway.

I don't know if anyone really remembers this but the really first farking crazy gun lawsuit involved an incident where a teenager broke into a hope and stole a .25 pistol which he ended up using to kill someone.  Well the blood sucking lawyers backed by anti-gun groups just decoded to just sue EVERYONE.  The company that originally made the pistol had already gone out of business.  But they sued everyone else they could.  They sued the distributor that had once sold it to a store.  They used the gun store that sold it.  They even sued the school where the teacher was shot.  And sadly they actually one that case to the tune of 24 MILLION dollars.

There for a few years every time there was a fairly notable shooting incident they lawyers would try to use that tactic.  It got to the point that a Federal law was passed specifically to block these lawsuits, back in '05.
 
2014-05-09 08:21:38 PM  

cretinbob: No one, because the Second AMEN!dment


ftfy
 
2014-05-09 08:26:31 PM  

DarkVader: BumpInTheNight: EdNortonsTwin: Man steals gun, shoots someone, gets sued.

That's it.

What paper work were you doing in the back any ways?  That's the really important part of your story that's missing, the part where you left a homeless man alone with the gun 'to go do some paperwork'.

I dunno, maybe calling in the background check?

It's Alaska, lots of people look like that in Alaska.  I doubt he said he was homeless.

And it's a small town, only 32,000 people.  Doing business in a small town isn't the same as a big city, you don't always have somebody watching to make sure the customer doesn't steal anything, especially when it's a small store with nobody but the owner working.

And the store owner reported the gun as stolen.  What was he supposed to do with the $200, burn it?  He put it in the bank.

And no gun dealer is going to risk his license for someone he doesn't know, certainly not for a $200 sale.  That guy could have been undercover ATF looking to make a bust.  I'm sure there probably are some who might take a risk for a friend, but not for a stranger.

So no, the story is completely believable.  Small town business, overly trustful owner (he's probably been doing business like that for 20 years or more), and some guy walks out with the gun, dropping $200 on the counter.

Here's the owner, with a different customer:

[images.morris.com image 500x324]

Yes, the old guy.  And that customer looks kind of homeless too.


Here's a link to a different article...

http://juneauempire.com/local/2012-03-05/juneau-gun-shop-owner-heart -a k-supreme-court-case

Which has more info on the old guy.

FTA: "Lowy went on to say in court and in written briefs that two firearms and security experts testified that the guns were likely sold off the books; that ATF found Coxe violated gun laws several times in the past, including disposing of firearms with no record of sale as required by federal law; that Coxe's own employees expressed concerns to Coxe that it was too easy for someone to steal a gun from the store; and that when four guns were reported missing in rapid succession in 1993, the Juneau Police Department gave Coxe a verbal warning to increase security on his guns."

"On top of that, Lowy argues, Coxe's story is inconsistent, and that there are contradictions in his sworn testimony. For example, Lowy lists, Coxe put forth that the reason he left the future killer Jason Coday unattended in his store is because the store was busy at the time. That's not true, Lowy said."

So, it sounds like yes, this guy has a long history of shady gun deals. Sounds like he knew exactly what he was doing, made up a story that allowed him to claim he was innocent as well as letting the guy get well away before the police were called.

Your suggestion that shop owners in small towns are going to walk away and let people they don't know have the run of the store, especially a gun store, and after this guy has been warned before by police that he needs to have better security on his guns, makes you sound like a complete farking idiot.
 
2014-05-09 08:41:02 PM  
Another Responsible Gun Store Owner.
 
2014-05-09 10:22:23 PM  
FTA:

 Lowy said a previous audit of Rayco Sales found 200 guns missing from the inventory.

That's beyond suspicious
 
2014-05-10 01:12:20 AM  

iheartscotch: Alaska, huh? Then the perp is tots cray cray.

That's a tough one. The bum failed to legally purchase the gun. So, the shop's owner didn't break any laws. It sounds like the owner reported the incident to the proper authorities. But; why do you leave a customer holding your merchandise, especially something as expensive as a gun, without anybody watching him? Sounds a little fishy to me.


And then reports it as a sale to the bank?

This sounds like a gun shop owner purposely trying to circumvent the background check laws to make a sale, if you ask me.
 
2014-05-10 01:55:17 AM  
First  you say :

Hermione_Granger: Therefore the store did the right thing in reporting what happened to the police.


Then you say:

Hermione_Granger: There's nothing to indicate that they reported it stolen and filed an insurance claim so there's no fraud.


You are claiming both sides.  You claim the did report it to the police, and that they did not report it stolen.

They did the right thing in reporting it to the police, but there is nothing to indicate that they reported it stolen?  Seems a bit messed up.  Maybe they didn't report it right away, but they did when it was convenient?"

This sounds a lot like "They didn't report it stolen at the time, because the guy gave them money.  But now that he shot someone with the gun that the sold him illegally, they are claiming he stole it".

Hermione_Granger: If I take a pillow from Walmart and leave $10 on the counter to cover the cost but don't go through the registers or check out with a cashier, is Walmart then responsible if I go out and smother somebody to death with the pillow?


Are there laws about who Walmart is allowed to sell a pillow to?  Are you legally not allowed to have a pillow?  Is your theft of the pillow a BS ploy to skip around a background check?
 
2014-05-10 01:58:08 AM  

ornithopter: And then reports it as a sale to the bank?

This sounds like a gun shop owner purposely trying to circumvent the background check laws to make a sale, if you ask me.


Well that's kind of the question there.  Did they guy actually sell the rifle to the killer and just lied about it being stolen.  I'm going to say no myself.  There's no logical reason for the shop owner to have taken the risk to have sell that gun off the books at list price.  Not when he could have made the same amount of money with no legal risk.
 
2014-05-10 02:04:10 AM  

Noishkel: Well that's kind of the question there. Did they guy actually sell the rifle to the killer and just lied about it being stolen. I'm going to say no myself. There's no logical reason for the shop owner to have taken the risk to have sell that gun off the books at list price. Not when he could have made the same amount of money with no legal risk.


Apparently, at some point, he reported the gun stolen.  I'm curious exactly when that happened.

When he walked out and found the $200 laying there and the gun gone, did he call it in then, within minutes?  Or did he wait to report it as stolen for, oh, say 2 days, until after the gun had been used in a murder?

If he really wants people to believe "I didn't sell him the gun, he stole it", then that phone call to report the gun stolen should have happened pretty quick.  That doesn't make him 100% clear, but it certainly helps.  If he waited 24 hours or more to report it?  That looks very bad.  It looks like you made a side-sale and are making sure that your buyer gets a good head start.  And when your buyer, who wouldn't have been a legal buyer, uses the gun to kill someone, it looks pretty bad.

The part about selling it at list price?  The only price we know is the price he tells us.  It's not likely, of course, but he could have received $50,000 in cash.  He's not going to run to the press saying "Yeah, the homeless murderer gave me $50,000 for that gun".  His story is already fishy, lets not assume that he couldn't consider lying about it.
 
2014-05-10 02:07:51 AM  

JuggleGeek: First  you say :
Hermione_Granger: Therefore the store did the right thing in reporting what happened to the police.

Then you say:
Hermione_Granger: There's nothing to indicate that they reported it stolen and filed an insurance claim so there's no fraud.

You are claiming both sides.  You claim the did report it to the police, and that they did not report it stolen.

They did the right thing in reporting it to the police, but there is nothing to indicate that they reported it stolen?  Seems a bit messed up.  Maybe they didn't report it right away, but they did when it was convenient?"

This sounds a lot like "They didn't report it stolen at the time, because the guy gave them money.  But now that he shot someone with the gun that the sold him illegally, they are claiming he stole it".

Hermione_Granger: If I take a pillow from Walmart and leave $10 on the counter to cover the cost but don't go through the registers or check out with a cashier, is Walmart then responsible if I go out and smother somebody to death with the pillow?

Are there laws about who Walmart is allowed to sell a pillow to?  Are you legally not allowed to have a pillow?  Is your theft of the pillow a BS ploy to skip around a background check?


Well I can speak for the original poster but I think he meant that he didn't file a claim with the insurance company for the rifle.  The $200 he lost on the rifle might not be worth what it would do to his deductible if had filed a claim on it.  But insurance can be tricky that way.
 
2014-05-10 02:26:34 AM  

JuggleGeek: Apparently, at some point, he reported the gun stolen. I'm curious exactly when that happened.

When he walked out and found the $200 laying there and the gun gone, did he call it in then, within minutes? Or did he wait to report it as stolen for, oh, say 2 days, until after the gun had been used in a murder?

If he really wants people to believe "I didn't sell him the gun, he stole it", then that phone call to report the gun stolen should have happened pretty quick. That doesn't make him 100% clear, but it certainly helps. If he waited 24 hours or more to report it? That looks very bad. It looks like you made a side-sale and are making sure that your buyer gets a good head start. And when your buyer, who wouldn't have been a legal buyer, uses the gun to kill someone, it looks pretty bad.

 Well these are good questions.  But I'm still going to say that the story looks as presented.  It's a good question as to when exactly he called the police.  But the fact that it didn't specifically say that he waited for days before calling leads me to believe that he didn't wait to report it.  Don't forget that this whole incident occurred about 8 years ago.  If there was any real doubt that the story about this guy steal the gun was bogus then the dealer would have been charged.  Probably federally.  This is one of the things the ATF does.  Especially when it looks like a murder has been committed with a gun.  Any kind of major violation such as this always comes with a HEAVY (started at about 5 digits) fine as well as with automatic forfeiture of your FFL (gun shop license).
 
2014-05-10 06:03:22 AM  

anuran: FTA:

 Lowy said a previous audit of Rayco Sales found 200 guns missing from the inventory.

That's beyond suspicious


Didn't the ATF just shut down a store in NY that was missing about this many guns?  With far, far higher volume?
 
2014-05-10 07:23:33 AM  

Kuta: Am I the only one thinking this happens (gun left on counter, owner goes out of sight to do paperwork, customer leaves cash and takes off, no surveillance camera video) with some relative frequency?

The issue is that the guy who bought the gun was a lunatic and went and killed someone in short order. The laws are there for a reason. Coxe (the vendor) was not stupid. He was criminally and willfully negligent.


That's my take on the story.  Usually nothing bad seems to come of Coxe's criminality, alas this time reality caught up with him.  Close him down, lock him up and give his assets to the family of the dead.
 
2014-05-10 09:57:41 AM  

ArkAngel: No straw sale. Everyone involved agrees the guy got the gun from that shop. The question is whether he stole it and left money or the place sold it to him


Yeah, and the security system error makes me suspect the latter.

spiritplumber: In fairness, I've done this with a shopping cart (we needed to get some truck batteries down a long pier, and there were no carts available, so we had to improvise).


Huh?  Done what?

Perhaps you're referring to what I did once:  Pulled the failed battery out of the car and loaded it in a nearby shopping cart, wheeled it across the street to get a replacement and when I was done the cart ended up in the corral of the shopping center it started from.  They lost the use of their cart for maybe half an hour at a slow time of day--no harm done.
 
2014-05-10 11:41:07 AM  

Langdon_777: Kuta: Am I the only one thinking this happens (gun left on counter, owner goes out of sight to do paperwork, customer leaves cash and takes off, no surveillance camera video) with some relative frequency?

The issue is that the guy who bought the gun was a lunatic and went and killed someone in short order. The laws are there for a reason. Coxe (the vendor) was not stupid. He was criminally and willfully negligent.

That's my take on the story.  Usually nothing bad seems to come of Coxe's criminality, alas this time reality caught up with him.  Close him down, lock him up and give his assets to the family of the dead.


Though now that I have actually read more comments - maybe he did report it (I hope it was that day and the day after the murder...)
 
2014-05-10 11:42:19 AM  
Though now that I have actually read more comments - maybe he did report it (I hope it was that day and NOT the day after the murder...)

/oops missed a vital word.
 
2014-05-10 02:18:33 PM  

Firethorn: Didn't the ATF just shut down a store in NY that was missing about this many guns? With far, far higher volume?


Well 'missing' doesn't automatically the gun got lost or sold out the back door.  It means when checked the they didn't have the exact form on hand ready to go for the ATF.  Gun dealers are required to keep every single form 4473 that is filled out on file for 20 YEARS.  That can very easily end up being a SIGNIFICANT amount of paper.

Fun story: a while back I had to pawn a rather pricey SIG Sauer handgun due to some personal financial troubles.  Took me three months to pay it down only to have the pistol CONFISCATED when I went to go get it out of pawn.  Turns out somewhere in the chain of life of that handgun (I bought it used) a gun shop in Texas had it in it's custody, but lost the form 4473.  So the ATF flagged serial number.  When every a gun gets pawned the shop owner will check with check with the police department who checks with the ATF to see if the serial number had been flagged as stolen or used in a crime.  So when it showed up flagged the cops came and got it.

I never ended up getting my Sig back.  Although the ATF finally cleared the sealer number as being 'missing' the cops held onto it for a while.  And then the damn pawn shop decided to pull a bit of a fast one on me.  Claim that I never came it got it out of pawn.  Even though it was the police that had it in their possession for months I still paid the bill on it.
 
2014-05-10 08:08:16 PM  

JuggleGeek: First  you say :
Hermione_Granger: Therefore the store did the right thing in reporting what happened to the police.

Then you say:
Hermione_Granger: There's nothing to indicate that they reported it stolen and filed an insurance claim so there's no fraud.

You are claiming both sides.  You claim the did report it to the police, and that they did not report it stolen.

They did the right thing in reporting it to the police, but there is nothing to indicate that they reported it stolen?  Seems a bit messed up.  Maybe they didn't report it right away, but they did when it was convenient?"

This sounds a lot like "They didn't report it stolen at the time, because the guy gave them money.  But now that he shot someone with the gun that the sold him illegally, they are claiming he stole it".

Hermione_Granger: If I take a pillow from Walmart and leave $10 on the counter to cover the cost but don't go through the registers or check out with a cashier, is Walmart then responsible if I go out and smother somebody to death with the pillow?

Are there laws about who Walmart is allowed to sell a pillow to?  Are you legally not allowed to have a pillow?  Is your theft of the pillow a BS ploy to skip around a background check?


Actually I wasn't claiming both sides. I meant, they did report it stolen to the police, but they did not report it stolen to an insurance company, if they have one, which they should, right?

Sorry about that. Re-reading what I wrote, it wasn't very succinct.
 
2014-05-11 03:17:58 AM  

Noishkel: Even though it was the police that had it in their possession for months I still paid the bill on it.


That, my friend, is what receipts are for.  Sorry for your loss though.

As for the 4473's, that's what electronic record systems, or at least the 'bound book' is for.
 
Displayed 157 of 157 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report