Schizophrenics, Guns and Wal-Mart - Discuss

[Kire]

Mom Sues Wal-Mart Over Daughter's Suicide

Tue Dec 21, 4:43 PM ET

By LIZ AUSTIN, Associated Press Writer

DALLAS - Near the end of her short life, Shayla Stewart, a diagnosed manic-depressive and schizophrenic, assaulted police officers and was arrested for attacking a fellow customer at a Denton Wal-Mart where she had a prescription for anti-psychotic medication.

Given all those signs, her parents say, another Wal-Mart just seven miles away should have never sold her the shotgun she used to kill herself at age 24 in 2003.

Her mother, Lavern Bracy, is suing the world's biggest store chain for $25 million, saying clerks should have known about her daughter's illness or done more to find out.

The case, filed earlier this month, has reignited a debate over the confidentiality of mental health records and the effectiveness of background checks on would-be buyers of guns.

"We know that if they had so much as said, `Why do you want this?' we would not be having this conversation because Shayla would have had a meltdown," said her stepfather, Garrett Bracy.

The Bracys said Wal-Mart's gun department could have checked Wal-Mart's own security files or the pharmacy department's prescription records before selling her the weapon.

More: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=3&u=/ap/gun_lawsuit

[MrSandman]

1. Sue the BATF(E)...

They approved the sale.

[Redneck Socialist]

2. Yeah, it's always somebody else's fault.

flame away...

[HamiltonHabs32]

3. schizophrenic with a gun

what could go wrong?

don't they do background checks when you buy a gun?

/Don't know much about guns

[Jack_DeLeon]

4. They did, she passed...

Walmart did a background check with the government's system. The lady passed it.

Do you think the government should have a more intrusive background check, like the kind for getting a security clearance, for a person to buy a gun?

[SariesNightly]

5. There's no stopping willful suicide..

but for sloppy backgroung checks, this lawsuit will hopefully keep them on their toes.

[alwynsw]

6. Sorry about her luck

Wal Mart followed the law. If anyone is to blame it's, uh, no one - unless you want to blame Shayla for lying about her mental illness.

The pharmacy records are confidential. No hope of cross-shecking that legally. Insofar as the security records go; if she wasn't convicted of a (felony) crime aside from domestic violence, Wal Mart could not legally refuse the sale. If she was convicted, the fault lies with the BATFE for failure to properly maintain their files.

[Romulus]

9. Wal Mart can refuse anyone they want

An FFL isn't forced to sell to anyone.

Like peremptory strikes during jury selection, FFL's can reject a customer for any reason or no reason.

Not that it may have helped in this case.

[alwynsw]

10. Poor wording on my part.

I was going for this idea, but sidetracked myself:

..if Wal Mart refused the sale, they'd likely be facing a lawsuit for refusing an (on the surface) legal transaction.

Thanks for the heads up.

[Left in IL]

7. Who pulled the trigger?

That's who I'd blame.

Maybe Shayla should have been locked up, clearly she had previous problems showing she was dangerous.

And if she was arrested for assult, shouldn't the background check have kicked her out?

[Kire]

22. there goes the insanity defense

you convinced me, Left, lock 'em all up, send 'em to jail

[slackmaster]

8. Bipolar disorder and schizophrenia do not make a person unqualified

To buy a gun. And I don't believe they should. Most people who are diagnosed with one or both of those conditions are able to lead normal lives with proper medical care.

The Bracys said Wal-Mart's gun department could have checked Wal-Mart's own security files or the pharmacy department's prescription records before selling her the weapon.

Wal-Mart the federal firearms licensee is not obligated to check that information, the information was not legally available to the Sporting Goods department; and even if the person at the gun counter knew about the medication that would not be grounds for denying the sale of the weapon. There is no type of medication for which having a prescription disqualifies a person from buying a gun.

The Bracys are understandably upset at the death of their daughter, but unless they can prove that Wal-Mart either filled out the federal paperwork for her or the person selling the shotgun knew certain details of her medical history, the lawsuit is headed nowhere.

[NorthernSpy]

11. Does Wal*Mart have a responsibility to ban from its stores --

or otherwise take appropriate measures regarding -- those customers the company has reason to know are dangerous to themselves or others?

That strikes me as the central question. And I can see that I had better ask it right away, before the "personal responsibility" red herring has stunk up the discussion any worse than it already has done.

Even leaving aside her prescription records, the woman who bought the gun was known to the company to be violent: She had been arrested in a WalMart store for physically attacking another shopper. WalMart was aware of the woman's violent tendencies, and yet evidently chose not to use the information they had; the result -- arguably -- is that the company did not take appropriate measures to ensure the safety of their customers and employees (or, for that matter, the safety of the public at large -- which is relevant re WalMart's federal firearms dealer license).

Given this knowledge, was WalMart negligent in its apparent failure to act?

And given a demonstrated failure to take into account its own first-hand information about the violent tendencies of a customer, should WalMart be permitted to sell firearms in the future? What is the public interest in this case?

[slackmaster]

13. It would be difficult for Wal-Mart to maintain a persona non grata list

... the result -- arguably -- is that the company did not take appropriate measures to ensure the safety of their customers and employees (or, for that matter, the safety of the public at large -- which is relevant re WalMart's federal firearms dealer license).

It would be hard to make an argument that Wal-Mart didn't adequately protect customers, employees, or the public at large in this incident: The only person who got hurt was the one who wanted to die.

Given this knowledge, was WalMart negligent in its apparent failure to act?

Would it be reasonable to expect Wal-Mart to make a list of every customer who has ever exhibited erratic behavior in the store, to maintain the list in perpetuity, and keep every person who works at the store aware of all the "undesirable" customers so they can make judgement calls as to whether or not to sell them firearms (or anything else that has potential for abuse)?

My small neighborhood bar has only five or six part-time bartenders in addition to the owner/manager, and it's hard enough for them to keep track of a handful of people who have been "86ed" for fighting or breaking things or running out without paying. I think it's plausible that the person who sold the shotgun had no knowledge of the woman's past incidents.

And given a demonstrated failure to take into account its own first-hand information about the violent tendencies of a customer, should WalMart be permitted to sell firearms in the future? What is the public interest in this case?

Gun dealers use objective criteria in determining whether or not to process a sale. Getting into a fight in a Wal-Mart (or having a prescription for Thorazine or lithium) is not grounds for being disqualified from owning a gun. If Wal-Mart had made the necessary mental connections and used its discretion to decline the sale of that weapon, the woman could simply have gone to any other place that sells guns and bought one anyway. IOW she'd probably still be dead.

The only public safety issue I see in this incident is that an actual disqualying event was not in the NICS database. If it had been, then any honest gun dealer in the country would have refused to sell that woman a firearm.

[NorthernSpy]

16. negligence, luck, and outcome

It would be hard to make an argument that Wal-Mart didn't adequately protect customers, employees, or the public at large in this incident: The only person who got hurt was the one who wanted to die.

That doesn't sound quite right.

Say I had a kid, and say that I am driving the kid someplace, but have failed to buckle him/her into the child safety seat. We get into an accident. The kid is uninjured.

My failure to take the appropriate measure to protect the kid from injury is still a negligence on my part, regardless of what happened next. Physical harm to the kid was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of my failure to act. Kid's lack of injury is just luck; I'm still responsible for having put him/her at risk.

Likewise, the fact that the woman chose to turn her newly bought gun on herself without trying it out on someone else first may be fortunate for the public at large. But the fact of that good fortune does not put paid to the question of whether WalMart was negligent in selling her the gun in the first place.

Would it be reasonable to expect Wal-Mart to make a list of every customer who has ever exhibited erratic behavior in the store, to maintain the list in perpetuity, and keep every person who works at the store aware of all the "undesirable" customers so they can make judgement calls as to whether or not to sell them firearms (or anything else that has potential for abuse)?

Exhibiting "erratic behavior" is one thing; getting hauled out in handcuffs after having attacked someone is another. Why would it be unreasonable to expect WalMart to keep a roster of people who had been arrested for committing violent acts on its property?

WalMart is not really comparable to your neighborhood bar. This is a company that uses high-tech tags to monitor its inventory and automatically put in orders whenever the supply of a given product drops below a certain number on the display shelves. How burdensome could it possibly be for WalMart to devote a tiny bit of its remarkable systematics to protect its workers and customers from the known-dangerous individuals that they have encountered and might encounter again?

The worker who sold the gun cannot be expected to have known any better. The organization that the employee was working for, however, did possess relevant knowledge about the customer, and was -- I argue -- responsible for what it did, or failed to do, with that knowledge.

Gun dealers use objective criteria in determining whether or not to process a sale. Getting into a fight in a Wal-Mart (or having a prescription for Thorazine or lithium) is not grounds for being disqualified from owning a gun. If Wal-Mart had made the necessary mental connections and used its discretion to decline the sale of that weapon, the woman could simply have gone to any other place that sells guns and bought one anyway. IOW she'd probably still be dead.

Fighting (or in this case, being arrested for attacking someone) on store property or having a thorazine prescription may not be reasons for government seizure of a person's weaponry, but they may very well justify a dealer refusing to make a sale. Is there some law that states that a firearms dealer must sell a weapon to anyone who passes the database check? Rom, I believe, says no.

It's true that the woman, had she been denied a gun at WalMart, might simply have gone somewhere that she was unknown, and bought one there. But had that happened, WalMart would not have exposed itself to liability for negligence in this case. As it turned out, they did expose themselves to liability, and have been sued as a consequence. Which is too bad for them, I suppose. But I really don't see why they must automatically be let off the hook for their bad judgement just because the woman might ultimately have killed herself anyway, even if the company had exercised good judgement and refused to sell her a gun.


(one typo fixed, others likely remain. :( )

[Retired AF Dem]

17. Maybe the person bringing this law suit

should be held responsible. Mom knew her daughter was sick, mom should of done more to protect her. Me being me thinks though I would rather have the daughter shoot herself than do something like walk into the middle of an interstate and have someone else kill her and have to live with that for the rest of their lives.

[slackmaster]

19. I'm content to let the court system sort it all out

At least here in the USA you are required by law to have your kid buckled up. That's cut and dried.

Exhibiting "erratic behavior" is one thing; getting hauled out in handcuffs after having attacked someone is another.

Is it? Lots of people get hauled off in handcuffs after getting into scuffles with other people. Whether she attacked someone without provocation or justification is a matter of speculation and hearsay unless you saw the incident.

Police often arrest everyone involved rather than trying to sort out who was right and who was wrong. In many cases nobody was right. But getting into a fight is not legal grounds for denying someone a gun. It may be grounds for excluding the person from your retail establishment, or not. That is up to the management of the store. We don't know jack shit about what kind of attack occurred or what damage was done. Maybe they didn't use good judgement in not permanently excluding the woman from the store.

Why would it be unreasonable to expect WalMart to keep a roster of people who had been arrested for committing violent acts on its property?

I don't know whether or not that would be reasonable. Like everything else it's a business decision whether or not the benefits of keeping a flaky customer out of the store is worth more than the potential revenue they may bring later, and the hassle of keeping them out. If it's like most Wal-Marts I've seen it's a very large store with a lot of activity. Does the corporation have a policy of permenently excluding customers who have been arrested on the premises? If so, how long are those individuals excluded? Was corporate and/or store policy followed? Do those policies reflect what a reasonable person would consider due diligence based on the nature of the "attack" that happened in the past? Again, I can't say.

This is a company that uses high-tech tags to monitor its inventory and automatically put in orders whenever the supply of a given product drops below a certain number on the display shelves. How burdensome could it possibly be for WalMart to devote a tiny bit of its remarkable systematics to protect its workers and customers from the known-dangerous individuals that they have encountered and might encounter again?

Maybe Wal-Mart needs some kind of "Tag-and-Release" program for unruly customers. Some stores have on-site veterinary clinics. Perhaps they could have undesirable people "microchipped" so they can be scanned and detected automatically when they try to enter the store.

Seriously, I wonder how big the list of excluded customers would get for a large, busy retail store. One or two people is one thing, but if they had dozens of bad people accumulated over the years it could get burdensome. How would employees be kept up to date? Would we expect the store to keep its own "Most Unwanted" list like they do for people known to write bad checks? Bad checks can get caught by computer scans. Unless you go the veterinary route I believe the only reliable way to recognize a human is for another human to look at the face.

Fighting (or in this case, being arrested for attacking someone) on store property or having thorazine prescription may not be reasons for government seizure of a person's weaponry, but they may very well justify a dealer refusing to make a sale. Is there some law that states that a firearms dealer must sell a weapon to anyone who passes the database check? Rom, I believe, says no.

He's right. Generally retailers have the right to refuse to do business with anyone. In the case of gun dealers, knowingly selling a gun to someone they know to be legally disqualified is a violation of the law. But as another contributer pointed out, refusing to sell a gun or anything else to a person who is (to the best of your knowledge) legally qualified to buy it carries a risk of being sued for discrimination.

It's true that the woman, had she been denied a gun at WalMart, might simply have gone somewhere that she was unknown, and bought one there. But had that happened, WalMart would not have exposed itself to liability for negligence in this case. As it turned out, they did expose themselves to liability, and have been sued as a consequence.

Interacting with other humans carries a risk of being sued. Whether or not Wal-Mart has any liability will be determined by the court system. The courts may find this suit to be groundless and throw it out, or a jury may find Wal-Mart liable (or not), or the company may settle out of court and write it off to the cost of doing business. The larger the company the greater the likelihood they'll pay you off rather than fight you in court.

If I was the manager of that Wal-Mart I'd be thinking about this kind of issue very carefully. Maybe they should have some kind of shit list for people they don't want to sell guns to. It might be simpler to just keep them out of the store entirely.

[Retired AF Dem]

12. If Walmart did a NICS check

they should be in the clear since they followed federal law. If a person wants to kill themselves they will find a way.
http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?id=19559&siteSection=1

[NorthernSpy]

14. Say you're a federally licensed firearms dealer...

And say that it can be proved that you have first-hand knowledge that I have committed domestic violence.

Say that I come to you and ask you to sell me a gun.

Say the database check of my criminal history reveals no convictions.

However, given that you know first-hand that I am dangerous, would you be negligent in selling me a firearm despite being aware of my violent tendencies?

[Retired AF Dem]

15. I would not sell you a gun

but what is stopping you from going to another gun store where none of the employees know you? Should they be held negligent?

[NorthernSpy]

18. should they be considered negligent, you ask...

but what is stopping you from going to another gun store where none of the employees know you? Should they be held negligent?

You, knowing my violent tendencies, refuse to sell me a gun, and I go somewhere else where I am unkown. Are the new, unknowing dealers negligent in selling me a firearm?

I'd have to say that no, they are not negligent. All they know about me is what the database check tells them. They are acting on their best judgement, given what they know at the time, when they decide to sell to me. They have protected the public to the best of their ability. The sale is made in good faith.

Possession of information may affect the decision that a reasonable person would be expected to make under given circumstances.

[Left in IL]

20. I know this did not happen, but..

WHAT IF...

She admitted at one walmart that she had mental health problems, and got turned down for a firearms sale, then went to the other walmart 7 miles away, lied and got the gun, then killed herself.

Is walmart reqired to maintain it's own internal rejection list. In such a case, walmart as a corporation would know the woman was unqualified.

Or is each store it's own FFL?

[slackmaster]

21. Not sure how Wal-Mart does it, but Big 5 has one FFL for California

You raise an interesting question. If Wal-Mart had special knowledge that the woman was disqualified, or just a morally good reason to deny the sale, how far would that accountability extend?

:shrug:

[alwynsw]

24. Each Wal Mart has it's own FFL in this neck of the woods.

The Elizabethtown, KY store lost it's FFL for a couple of years because of botched record keeping (or so it was told). I do know that they didn't sell firearms in that store for about 2 years because they lost their FFL for some reason. I just drove a couple of mile farther down the road to the Radcliff Wal Mart if I wanted a firearm Wal Mart stocked and bought it there.

[aikoaiko]

23. Walmart doesn't seem liable here.

Its too bad about this, but this is clearly one of the side effects of making firearms available to citizens without terribly intrusive background checks.

The NICS might not have even failed. The article said she was arrested for attacking a fellow customer, but its not clear if that would have met the criteria for Question 12C of ATF form 4473 (Have you ever been convicted of a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?) She might not have even been booked (just hauled off in handcuffs and released if she calmed down and no charges were pressed) or it might have been a misdemeanor punishable with a year or less.

Maybe 12f might have kicked in if she had been committed to a mental institution. 12f reads -- Have you ever been adudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental insitution?

I mean, if her family knew she was so nuts, then they should have had her committed and then the NICS would have (should have) done its job.

http://www.atf.gov/forms/4473/

Me --- I'm not really happy with the idea of Walmart deciding when to honor someone's 2nd amendment right when they can formally pass the background checks any more than I would be happy with someone at a voting place denying someone the right to vote because a polling volunteer 'thinks' the person moved or 'thinks' the person might be a convicted felon.

I'm satisfied with the mechanisms in place to prevent mentally unstable people from getting firearms (committments).

But if were Walmart -- I would settle.

[cattleman22]

25. This seems asinine.

The Bracy's are mad that Walmart actually protects patient confidentiality in the pharmacies.