You think the other Walmart lawsuit was crazy (1 Viewer)

[Chris_Morris]

You ain't seen nothing:
Woman sues WalMart because they didn't know her daughter was mentally insane and suicidal

:rolleyes

Chris

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

You got that right. :rolleyes

 

[Grant B]

$25Million?
That's all?

If I ever walk inside a Walmart, I'll sue for more than that!

Sam Walton use to tip his hookers more than that at Christmas......how degrading only $25 mil

 

[Brian Perry]

That she used a gun to kill herself means nothing. Nada. What if she had used a knife? Or overdosed on drugs? The instrument of death just happened to be an item that could be "linked" to an entity with deep pockets, hence the lawsuit.

Until lawyers start getting fined and/or disbarred for bringing these frivolous lawsuits into the system, we'll continue to see crap like this.

 

[Chris_Morris]

That's what I was thinking. I bought a lockback boxcutter knife the other day and it didn't even flag to check if I am over 18, yet if I buy an R-rated DVD, it will. Go figure.

Chris

 

[MarkHastings]

HOLY CRAP! Again, if she's really THAT bad (to the point where she'd have a meltdown), why the HELL is she alone at Wal-Mart????? Jesus Christ!!!!

 

[Keith Mickunas]

What's really stupid about this is that if they had looked into it, it would have been a violation of her privacy. Plus since some would consider her condition a handicap it could have been considered discrimination. So if Walmart had looked into it they would have been sued for multiple reasons by the girl and probably faced and investigation by the government and possibly a boycott by various groups that look out for the rights of the mentally handicapped. What a mess our courts have become. It's a shame crap like this is allowed to go on.

 

[DaveGTP]

I am definitely anti-Walmart due to numerous reasons already discussed plenty everywhere.

But this is really stretching it. They ran the federally required background check and she passed it. Whether medical records should be released to the FBI is a sticky matter but not relevant to the lawsuit here.

 

[SarahG]

consisdering all the circumstances, it's kind of a tough call. An argument can be made for both sides, but of course we don't have al the facts...

 

[Glenn Overholt]

No, I think it is another case of non-respponsibility. If her parents knew that she was a loaded gun (pun intended) then they should have watched her.

Ha, ha, she lied on a form! Maybe Wal-mart should sue her estate!

Glenn

 

[Christ Reynolds]

i'm not sure what i have more hatred for...frivolous lawsuits, or walmart. makes it hard for me when they are up against each other...

CJ

 

[AjayM]

That is exactly what is relevant to this suit, that is the whole point is that she's buying prescription meds in the pharmacy, then can walk over and buy a firearm without anybody raising an eyebrow.

It's a very sticky situation, and it could set a very dangerous precedent if Walmart is found "guilty".

Andrew

 

[Chris_Morris]

The difference is, she was buying the meds at one Walmart, and the gun at a different one. What her mother is suggesting is that stores should share prescription information between themselves. Since the girl bought meds in one store, all Walmarts should have known and been told that she was mentally unstable. I guess it never crossed the mother's mind that since she and her husband knew the girl was unstable, that maybe they have some responsibility in it too.


Chris

 

[AjayM]

Sharing prescription information between pharmacies isn't the issue, Walgreen's has advertised doing that for years. Get a prescription at one then go across the country and that Walgreens will have the information. I don't know if Walmart does that or not, I imagine they do.

The question is if the guys in the back selling sporting goods should be privy to that medical information. So in this case she did go to another store, but she could have just as easily done it at the same store because medical information is deemed private and is not part of a firearm background check.

The issue will revolve around do you want the guy working the sporting goods counter, or the clerk at the gun shop to know about your private medical records. Part of that sticky slope will be who get's to say if you can own a firearm or not, will the guy who needs Viagra be denied? How about the person with ADD? How about the person taking medication for sight related issues?

Once that precedent is set where is the next step? Obviously knowing a person's medical history could be VERY helpful for issuing drivers licenses, or a bank giving out loans (afterall giving money to a cancer patient could be seen as a high risk). When interviewing for a new job should the employer know that somebody is a recent cancer survivor (where chances of it coming back are highest), and base their hiring decision on that?

Some of that sounds far-fetched, and it is to some degree. But once you start setting those kinds of precedents the rest comes a lot easier.

 

[MarkHastings]

Agreed Ajay, everyone cries about "Big Brother" staying out of their business, yet they cry about where "Big Brother" is when something bad happens to them. :rolleyes

 

[Glenn Overholt]

But most of all, the people in firearms aren't qualified to judge that this and that drug make this person unstable. You can't generalize that. Heck, aren't the drugs supposed to make people stable, and not unstable?

Even the druggest could be misled unless she brought ALL of her meds there/and even then, they really should get the doctor(s) opinion(s).

Glenn

 

[Matt Butler]

Ill agree with Ajay and Mark.

The fasmily shouldnt be pissed at Walmart for this. They need to go after the state. It isnt Walmarts fault at all.





I know how you feel. But in this case Ill stand by Walmart. (Of course Ill be twitching the whole time)

 

[Joe Szott]

You guys nailed it. The state (of fed) needs to make a call on this one and decide if people who are taking certain drugs should or should not be able to buy/own guns. After all, she could have just left Walmart and bought the gun across the street at Gart Sports with a minimum of hassle. And Gart sure as heck isn't going to call Walmart to check her medical history.

But they must always call the state to verify the patron isn't an ex-con or such. The question here really is should certain drug prescriptions put you on that "no sell" list or not? And that IS a sticky wicket...

 

[MarkHastings]

I say "no".

I know people who aren't on medication, yet are suicidal - so how does Wal-Mart protect themselves there?

I also know people who are on a TON of medication and don't have the slightest inkling of suicide.

So if you judge a person by their medication, then (in the 2 examples above) you end up selling a gun to the person with suicidal thoughts and the one without suicidal thoughts, can't go hunting.

So I agree that NO, it's not the medication that should put you on the "no sell" list...it's the PERSONS actions/possible actions that should. Again, it's not a case that she was on medication that's the red flag, it's the fact that she's a "ticking time-bomb" that's the red flag.

So what I mean is, it's not the medication that's an indication of the behavior. It's the FEAKIN' Behavior that's the indication!

 

[Casey Trowbridg]

I didn't want to click on the link. I didn't want to look at the thread...but I couldn't help it, and now I'm really pissed off.

I hate having to side with Wal-Mart but these kinds of lawsuits piss me off so much. I'm going to just stop now before my head explodes, you guys have pretty much said it all.