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.

(Anchorage Daily 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 158
    More: Fail, Fred Meyer, target shooting, paperwork, Alaska Supreme Court, rifles, tort law, homeless, shootings  
•       •       •

6732 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 May 2014 at 2:38 PM (33 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 158 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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