(IL) Slaying victim's mom sues gun shop

D

Drizzt

New member
Slaying victim's mom sues gun shop
Murder weapon stolen from store

By Dan Mihalopoulos
Tribune staff reporter
Published April 10, 2002

Two years after her son was murdered with a gun stolen from a shop in Elgin, former resident Terry Kimble sued the store and its owner Tuesday, claiming the owner neglected to secure the store's stock against burglars.

Kimble filed the wrongful-death suit in Cook County Circuit Court, alleging that the B&L Rod and Gun Shop and its owner, William Whistle, "failed to take proper security measures," even after the store had been robbed.

Elgin police said burglars broke into the B&L shop three times from 1998 to 2000. In the second break-in, in December 1999, a small-caliber Beretta handgun was among 23 weapons taken from a display case.

Police say that gun was used in the fatal shooting of Matthew Kimble, 18, in April 2000.

Twelve days after Kimble was shot, burglars again broke into Whistle's shop, taking another 12 guns.

Nobody has been arrested in Kimble's shooting. In January, Terry Kimble sued Roberto Vences of Elgin, who was charged in the shooting but has not been found.

Terry Kimble said she holds Whistle partially responsible for her son's death.

"[Whistle] didn't shoot Matthew, but he made it easy for Roberto Vences to get ahold of that gun," she said Tuesday. "People that own guns or sell them need to know that you have to lock them up better."

Whistle could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Prompted by Kimble's death, in 2001 the Elgin City Council required gun shops to install metal gates or bars over doors and windows, hire a security guard or lock weapons in a safe. Other municipalities in the Chicago area, including Carol Stream, Northbrook and West Dundee, already had required gun shops to take extra security measures.

At the time, Whistle said Elgin officials drafted the new law to put him out of business. Rather than increase security at his store--which he said would be too costly--Whistle closed his shop in the Wing Park Shopping Center last year.

In an interview with the Tribune in 2000, Whistle said he resented the suggestion he was at all responsible for what had happened with a gun stolen from B&L.

"Anything can be misused," Whistle said.

"If somebody takes your pencil and stabs someone in the eye, would you have great remorse?"

Daniel Polsby, a law professor at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., said Terry Kimble could have a credible case against Whistle.

"The case will turn on whether the gun shop owner took reasonable care with the storage of foreseeably dangerous inventory," Polsby said. "If it turns out that security was not reasonable, given the nature of the inventory, the defendant will be liable."

The Chicago law firm of Burke, Mahoney & Wise is representing Kimble in her suits against Vences and Whistle. Terry Kimble and her family recently moved to Texas.

Police believe Matthew Kimble was an innocent bystander at a party where a fight broke out and shots were fired.

Terry Kimble said she hopes that insurance companies that do business with gun shops will force them to increase security.

"If [Whistle's store] had never been broken into, that would be one thing," she said.

"He knew his store was a target. ... Nothing is going to bring Matthew back, but if this suit makes gun owners secure their guns better, then it's worth it."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...329apr10.story?coll=chi-newslocaltribwest-hed

You know, I try not to pick on specific states, or the people that choose to reside in those states, but between stuff like this and that other report of banning all guns with 100 miles of Chicago ..... I'm about ready just to declare Illinois a lost cause.
 
Never mind that this guy got robbed, which means a lot more to HIM and his (un)successful business than the criminal mis-use of a stolen weapon. Seems that he didn't attach enough importance to maintaining his inventory if he got robbed that many times. No wonder he closed. Can't keep anything in the place.

I think I'll mopve to Illinois so I can start suing all those negligent car dealers and liquor stores. ;)
 
Let me get this straight?

If I park my car, lock the door and take the keys and someone breaks into it, hotwires it and runs over and kills a pedestrian, it's my fault?

According to these guys it is.

Lawyers seem to make people do the dumbest things in their grief and anger. Couple that with a "somebody owes me attitude" that seems prevalent today and here we are.

This suit will go nowhere, run up some big lawyers bills and then be settled by the owners insurance agency for a few grand that will go to the lawyer, not the griveing mother or family. Disgusting abuse of the legal system and frivolous at best, verging on criminally fraudulent at worst.

Don P.
 
This is just like "safe storage" laws which state that you must lock up your firearms -- and your locked front door of your home doesn't qualify. They, in effect, legitimize burglary and relegate the value of all other property you own to a lesser value than your firearms. It becomes "acceptable" behavior for thieves to steal anything you own as long as they do not steal your firearms.
 
Maybe all those smokers suing tobacco companies are missing out on something--they should be suing the convenience store, grocery or Wally World that sold them the butts. Maybe Sam's Empire has the wherewithal to defend themselves, but Apu probably can't afford the best:rolleyes:
 
In January, Terry Kimble sued Roberto Vences of Elgin, who was charged in the shooting but has not been found.
Click to expand...

And there is your answer folks. She tried to sue the guy who was charged, obviously for monetary reasons, as he was already charged criminally, but the guy hasn't been found. No guy, no money for Terry. So she looks around for another cash cow to milk, ah the gun shop! But of course! The gun shop owner hasn't flown the coop yet, so I can sue HIM and cash in!
 
I would only be inclined to find partial contributory negligence here if both of 2 factors exist:

1. Negligence in securing the firearms (here, it seems there may have been, due to the prior thefts); and
2. The third party criminal (the murderer) was a convicted felon, and therefore couldn't have gotten his hands on a gun by just walking in and buying one (this goes to causation). - I don't think the story says whether the alleged criminal (Vences) was a convicted felon or not.

Certainly, the murderer is completely responsible for the wrongful death. Too bad he may not be found, and if he is, 99.99% chance he has no money to pay the claims.

If the gun shop is also found to be partially negligent, this is unfortunate, at least in some states, because co-defendants are jointly and severally responsible (i.e. are liable for 100% of the total judgment), IF the plaintiff is not also contributorily negligent (in OK and a few other states - can't remember how many or which states). Not all states are like this, though. Some states make more sense in their tort law, so that (regardless of whether the plaintiff is contributorily negligent), the defendant who is found to be, say, 5% comparatively negligent, is only responsible for 5% of the total damage award (judgment amount), not jointly and severally liable.

Still, suppose a jury does find that the store was negligent (did not take reasonable precautions), and that say, the jury finds that this means the store is 5% responsbile for the death, and the criminal being 95% responsible. If the wrongful death award is 10 million, let's say, and suppose that the plaintiff (or here, the victim) was not contributorily negligent - probably he wasn't, if it was a typical gang banger murder, and suppose the state in question here is not like OK, so that defendants are not jointly and severally liable - well, then the gun shop STILL has a judgment for 5% of 10 million, which is $50,000. Hey, in our society, in you're negligent, you pay - that's how it works - fortunately, jurors can apportion comparative negligence. Unfortunately, some states are messed up in their tort like, like OK, and would make the shop liable for 10 million, which puts them into bankruptcy. For that matter, 50K may too, but it should if you cannot pay the judgment - that's how it works - if you're negligent, you pay. Better system than the alternative of not discouraging negligence.
 
No offense, Futo, I know you do this stuff for a living, but I lost several IQ points reading all that.

What will constitute negligence? Is there some standard of security he has to meet or be considered "partially responsible" for a murder committed by someone else AFTER they stole from him?

$50,000 would put any gun shop I've ever been in out of business. I doubt there's anything much bigger in Elgin.

It just boggles my mind that there might be a legal basis for holding this poor man responsible for the fact that the criminal who victimized him victimized someone else.

Does this apply to all thefts or only to those involving " foreseeably dangerous merchandise?" If some punk steals $1000 out of my house, buys some handguns and shoots his best friend on a dare, will I be liable for not better securing my money? What if he sells the handguns to his buddies for a profit and three of them go out and kill people. Am I now responsible for three murders?
:barf:
 
Oh sure. The gun store owner would want to have his stock stolen so that the burglars could use the guns to kill your son who was disarmed by the state government by their anti-CCW laws. :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

This is a 5 BARF alert!!!
 
Not to pick at nits (too much :D ) but 5% of 10 million is 500,000.

Either way more than the average store can absorb.

Greg
 
In my opinion, the only way the gun store owner could be liable in this murder was if he personally gave/sold the weapon to the perp knowing that the perp was going to use the weapon in the commission of a crime.

When will people realize that the only person/people responsible (and therefore, liable) for a crime is the criminal(s) who commit the act(s). I don't care if the owner accidentally left the door to his gun store unlocked and the gun laying out on the counter. He did not invite the perp to steal his weapon. To suggest otherwise is to excuse the behavior of anyone for anything because then it's always "someone else's fault". That is one of the mantras of the left and I don't buy it!

For those of you still not convinced, let's look at this from another point of view. For the sake of argument, let's ignore the fact that the perp burgled the store and stole the gun. Let's instead pretend that the store owner legally sold the gun to the perp in good faith (just assume that the perp passed all the background check nonsense). If the perp then went out and killed Ms. Kimble's beloved son, would the store owner still be liable?

If you think not (liable for knowingly providing the gun to the perp), then how on earth could he be liable for the death when the gun was stolen from him without consent.

If you think so (as do the liberal "blame everyone else" crowd), then watch out because we are ALL on a slippery slope to liability hell. By that (ir)rationale, we would all be liable for everything that happens to anybody because there will always be a way to establish a chain of events leading up to a particular person's actions or circumstances. That is the great LIE being foisted upon our society by greedy tort lawyers and the power-hungry leftists that want to establish a nanny state (with them in control as the ruling elite of course)!

If we are ever going to live as free people, then we as individuals must accept (and demand that all others accept) personal responsibility for our own actions.

And speaking of responsibility for one's actions, let's take a look at Matthew Kimble. I'm not one who reflexively blames the victim, but what was his real role in all this?

According to the Chicago Tribune staff "reporter" (and I use that term very loosely), "Matthew Kimble was an innocent bystander at a party where a fight broke out and shots were fired." People just reading the Tribune story are likely to picture Matthew Kimble as a clean cut young man attending a peaceful college frat party when all of a sudden, an uninvited hooligan with a gun started firing into the air, and a stray bullet hit and killed the innocent Kimble.

But the Tribune--like most mass media outlets in the US--has a leftist bias. By selective reporting, manipulation of the facts (and the English language), and other tricks right out of the Joseph Goebbels propaganda playbook, the Tribune has slanted the story to sell its anti-gun agenda.

What the Tribune chose NOT TO TELL US is that, the murderer, Roberto Vences, in addition to being a gun shop burglar, is a reputed gang member associated with the Maniac Latin Disciples. At the party, Vences got into a fight with Peter Gomez (one of Kimble's friends) and Vences shot Gomez and Peter Svendsen (another of Kimble's friends). Kimble then intervened (allegedly to try to disarm Vences) and was fatally shot in the chest at point blank range.

You see, the REAL story paints an entirely different picture than that told by the Tribune. Never rely on the media for the truth. Unfortunately, 99% of Americans are not going to do the research necessary to discover the facts. They happily digest the propaganda that is spoon fed to them by the newspapers and TV news anchors (and schools) and each new generation drifts further left.

But I digress. Unlike a woman who is seized and raped in a grocery store parking lot, Matthew Kimble knowingly put himself into a dangerous and volatile situation. He was freely associating with gang members in a basement party (and might very well have been a gang member himself--I could find no information to support or refute that possibility). When the dispute in the basement (over some spilled beer, of all things) escalated, Matthew and his friends did not choose to leave the party. Instead, they took the fight out into the street where the shootings eventually occurred. In my book, Matthew Kimble is partly responsible for his own death. (Infinitely more so than the gun store owner.)

In fact, I would also point the finger of responsibility at Ms. Kimble, Matthew's mother who is suing the gun store. If she had done a better job of raising her son and instilling in him the values, morals, and common sense that would have precluded him from attending a party with gang members, then he'd very likely still be alive today.
 
Last edited:
To Spyguy

First, I would like to know where you got your "facts" on the Matt Kimble case?? Were you there?? Matt was a very close friend of mine, and while I was not there, every close friend of mine was. You have no right to accuse the VICTIM of being a gang member because he was NOT. That is a FACT. Also, you said that his mother was partly to blame for his death because she raised a son who associates with gang members...how dare you! Matt was killed while trying to help his best friend who was shot multiple times. Did your mother teach you to be a coward and leave a dying friend?? What he did was honorable and you have turned it into something criminal. What you have said is a disgrace to the memory of a dear friend that I lost over 6 years ago. Do you know what it is like to have a friend murdered when you are only 18 years old? Do you know what it is like to wonder if your friend may die from multiple gun shot wounds when you are in high school? Have you ever seen the dead body of friend on the front of a newspaper? I am betting that you haven't, because if you had, you may understand why so many people are pro gun control. I understand and don't entirely disagree with you point of view on suing the owner of the gun store, but was it totally necessary to degrade the memory of loved one and to attack his mother? What you said was unfounded and heartless, and when the day comes that you suffer the way that we have suffered you may understand.
 
I don't see the store owner responsible but what bugs me is that he was robbed three times and nothing was done about it. He didn't bother increasing his security.


Gun owners claim that crimes with guns are commited with stolen guns and thus the rest of us shouldn't be punished. Alright, then why the frak are we not doing something about the stolen guns? After the first time this guy was robbed he should have taken precautions. If he can't keep his store from being robbed then he really has no business selling guns. It's things like this that allow criminals to use guns in crimes and give law abiding owners a bad name.

No, he wasn't responsible for the kid's death but he damn well needs to be held accountable for not securing his inventory. Once is victimization, three times is sheer negligence.
 
I have to disagree with that post. If all gunshops made their stores TOTALLY burglar proof ( if really possible), it would cost 1,000's of dollars. Are you willing to have this cost passed down to you,, would you spend an extra $50 for a gun so that YOU know he can't be robbed. Of course not, you would bitch all over the place.
What is the "standard" of responsibility? Is there a particular statute, code or law that requires a gunshop to have one level of security, a drugstore another, a different one for liquor stores, car dealorships??? and on and on. Municipalities need to establish what is proper security for all business I guess, otherwise THEY are as responsible as the gun shop in my mind. I really don't think the gunshop owner was too pleased to find his place broken into and the cost of whatever stolen his loss. Hey,, just keep it up and demand more and better security,, and you aren't going to have a gunshop to go to.
 
I would only be inclined to find partial contributory negligence here if both of 2 factors exist
Click to expand...

I don't know anything about Illinois law, but I hope that the gunshop can file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. That lawsuit shouldn't even get to the discovery stage, much less to trial.
 
would you spend an extra $50 for a gun so that YOU know he can't be robbed.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. If I were a gun shop owner and actually cared about the second amendment I would do everything in my power to make sure not a single one of the guns in my store was stolen. The shop I go to has very good security and if they get robbed I've no doubt they'll tighten it even more. It's not just about liability, it's about protecting our rights.

If we're going to sit here and tell the antis that all these crimes are caused by stolen guns we can't just look the other way and not care when those very same guns are stolen from right under our noses.

Well given the thread is 4 years old....anyone know the outcome of this?
Click to expand...
No idea but I'm guessing that friend of Kimble's found this thread through a search engine and felt the need to reply. Hopefully he'll stick around to explain what happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top