Federal Judge Finds USAF Responsible For Texas Church Massacre

T

thallub

New member
By failing to report an airman to NICS the USAF bears 60 percent of blame for the massacre.

"A federal judge ruled that the U.S. Air Force bears primary responsibility for ]the Sutherland Springs massacre because it failed to enter the shooter's criminal history into a database that should have kept him from buying guns, the Associated Press reports.

In a ruling signed Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez in San Antonio said the Air Force was “60% responsible” for the 2017 shooting by Devin Patrick Kelley that left 26 people dead at Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church, according to the AP. The church is located 30 minutes southeast of the Alamo City."

https://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily...y-responsible-for-sutherland-springs-massacre
 
SO, does that mean that judge thinks that the guy who aimed, pulled the trigger, and killed people is only "40% responsible" for the actions he committed of his own free will???

What is WRONG with these people?????

The Air Force is responsible for not passing on the information, and so has a role in the guy getting a gun. That is clear. But how the heck is the Air Force responsible for him shooting people, 60% or ANY percent??
He did that, the Air Force didn't.
 
Crazy.

Rodriguez [the judge that found the Air Force 60% responsible] ordered attorneys to prepare for a later trial that will decide the damages the federal government must pay to the victims' families who brought the suit, the AP reports.

The ruling comes two weeks after the Texas Supreme Court ruled that survivors and relatives of the dead couldn't sue Academy Sports and Outdoors, the chain where Kelly bought the AR-556 rifle used in the shooting.
Click to expand...

It will be very interesting to see how the next court case plays out.

Question for the legal folk, could THIS ruling, the 60% ruling, be appealed?
 
This appears to be a civil trial, not a criminal trial, correct? So the judge is attempting to apportion among those who will pay civil damages to the survivors. The murderer is deceased and is unlikely to have any assets to distribute to the survivors, and previously a suit against the seller of the firearm was tossed out by the Texas Supreme Court. So who is left to pay? The only deep pockets left are the US Government, under the guise of the Air Force (and taxpayers). I take this not that the Air Force is 60% at fault, but that they're going to pay 60% of any award of damages.
 
LeverGunFan said:
... I take this not that the Air Force is 60% at fault, but that they're going to pay 60% of any award of damages.
Click to expand...

So what happens if USAF decides to ignore the judgement? I'm confident the local sheriff isn't going to saunter onto a base and seize a plane for satisfaction of the judgement?
 
Just out of curiosity, if the Judge ruled the Air Force must pay 60% of the damages sought by victim"s families, where is the other 40% supposed to come from???
 
The USAF will pay up. There was a general failure by the US military to report felons and domestic abusers to NICS:

A review by the United States Air Force has found several dozen cases where the military failed to report service members convicted of serious crimes to the federal gun background-check databases, Air Force officials said on Tuesday.

“The error in the Kelley case was not an isolated incident and similar reporting lapses occurred at other locations,” the Air Force said in a statement. “Although policies and procedures requiring reporting were in place, training and compliance measures were lacking.”
Click to expand...

https://redstate.com/arbogast/2017/...ctions-firearm-background-check-system-n80354

After the massacre the US military reported 4,000 people with dishonorable discharges to NICS.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/12/us/g...litary-dishonorable-discharge-invs/index.html
 
I made it about half way through. Most of the first half is just the shooter's history of domestic abuse. He was quite a piece of work. And the USAF IG's report explicitly found that they (the USAF) had dropped the ball.
 
Clearly the Air Force failed its responsibility. I think, the reason might be that the Air Force (and all the military) operates under the UCMJ and last I knew, there is noting directly in the UCMJ about offences being disqualifiers for civilian firearms ownership.

And while they (as a group) do know that they have to check civilian law and report disqualifying offenses to the FBI (or whomever), the individuals doing the paperwork may not know, or even realize they don't know that they are supposed to do that. The supervisors know, but the pvts & cpls doing the paperwork may not, or may know but don't understand the significance and so things get lost, fall through the cracks, etc.

This is training issue in the Air Force, and a failure of supervision, which is why the judge found them negligent. They knew what should have been done. but failed to see that it was done, and done properly.

They may be predisposed to this failure due to the nature of the systems, but that does not excuse anything. They can, and have done it "right" quite often, so when they don't its a failure, and not a pardonable or forgivable mistake.

Just my opinion, worth what you paid for it. ;).
 
Wouldn't it be nice if the lawyers all agreed on what was the correct response, but strangely, they don't.
Click to expand...

If all the lawyers agreed, at least half of them would be quickly out of work! :rolleyes:
 
I haven't read the decision, but based on what I've read so far: (1) yes, it can be appealed; and (2) my gut says it will be. I haven't done any Federal Tort Claims Act work, but I doubt the USAF wants any kind of precedent set that it is responsible for damages when there's a good intervening or superseding causation argument to be made. And it looks like the USAF already made that argument to this court.
 
The USAF will have a tougher time than usual in avoiding systematic gross neglect of duty (as opposed to an aberrant one-off).

I would think (IMHO-only of course) it far better that they pay up and get it out of the news.
In Congress' current "...rewrite UCMJ..." mood for sex crimes, "we did it for the children" gun control
finger-pointing runs a close second in unwanted Woke Interference the longer it's newsworthy.

(and the new SECDEF seems to be rolling over at every turn to accommodate the latest trends on all fronts)
 
Spats McGee said:
I haven't done any Federal Tort Claims Act work, but I doubt the USAF wants any kind of precedent set that it is responsible for damages when there's a good intervening or superseding causation argument to be made.
Click to expand...

It ultimately isn't good if we lose the concept of an intervening criminal act as a break in the causal chain that allows liability. If every firearm manufacturer is sued out of existence for crimes committed with their goods, there won't be any new firearms. For similar reasons, there would be no new cars and bunches of other items we would like to have manufactured for us.

We can admit that the USAF should have complied with existing law, but that doesn't change the fact that Sutherland Springs killer is the necessary cause of each of those deaths.
 
thallub said:
The USAF will pay up. There was a general failure by the US military to report felons and domestic abusers to NICS:



https://redstate.com/arbogast/2017/...ctions-firearm-background-check-system-n80354

After the massacre the US military reported 4,000 people with dishonorable discharges to NICS.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/12/us/g...litary-dishonorable-discharge-invs/index.html
Click to expand...
Then there was also a general failure of his wife and others who never reported his behavior to authorities. What percentage are they accountable for; why aren't they factored into the equation?
 
101combatvet said:
Then there was also a general failure of his wife and others who never reported his behavior to authorities. What percentage are they accountable for; why aren't they factored into the equation?
Click to expand...
Lawyer's generally want to go after someone with $$$. Why spend time and money in court if you can't recover the costs of litigation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top