PDA

View Full Version : lawsuit filed against ATF


donw
02-02-2012, 6:50 AM
i saw on last nites news on Fox news network that the relatives of the slain BP agent, Terry, have filed a 25 million dollar law suit against the ATF for wrongful death in their bungled F&F op...hopefully...this will drive the final nail into holders coffin and add to the removal of obbamma...

i suspect holder is NOT a happy camper at this time...

vantec08
02-02-2012, 7:00 AM
The o.bammy administration and its supporters have made it clear they don't care if he/they throw money around like a drunken sailor (Solyndra, the other wasted "greenies" etc.). They can always come up with more excuses to excuse incompetence. To them, Brian Terry was an acceptable loss.

gatesbox
02-02-2012, 7:10 AM
I do hope this case goes well for the family F&F is ridiculous. But good luck expecting even a preferable outcome in this case to lead to Obama's removal from office, never gonna happen....

Mesa Tactical
02-02-2012, 9:12 AM
i saw on last nites news on Fox news network that the relatives of the slain BP agent, Terry, have filed a 25 million dollar law suit against the ATF for wrongful death in their bungled F&F op...hopefully...

Hopefully? You are hopeful for a legal precedent establishing that guns really do kill people after all?

Personally, I hope this is tossed out of court. The F&F charlie foxtrot is indeed a fiasco and Holder needs to be held to account for it. But he did not kill Agent Terry, some Mexican gangster did.

Curley Red
02-02-2012, 9:16 AM
To them, Brian Terry was an acceptable loss.

That is a truly sad and classless accusation to make.

RazzB7
02-02-2012, 9:37 AM
Hopefully? You are hopeful for a legal precedent establishing that guns really do kill people after all?

Personally, I hope this is tossed out of court. The F&F charlie foxtrot is indeed a fiasco and Holder needs to be held to account for it. But he did not kill Agent Terry, some Mexican gangster did.

While I agree that the Fast & Furious debacle is shameful, this lawsuit is no different than a family suing a firearms manufacturer for building the weapon used in a drive-by. I hope it get's tossed as well. That gun could have sat in Mexico for centuries and never killed anyone...until someone picked it up. But that same person could just as easily used a crowbar or a hammer to kill someone.

yellowfin
02-02-2012, 9:47 AM
That is a truly sad and classless accusation to make.Maybe, maybe not, but it's 100% true.

duggan
02-02-2012, 9:56 AM
While I agree that the Fast & Furious debacle is shameful, this lawsuit is no different than a family suing a firearms manufacturer for building the weapon used in a drive-by. I hope it get's tossed as well. That gun could have sat in Mexico for centuries and never killed anyone...until someone picked it up. But that same person could just as easily used a crowbar or a hammer to kill someone.

I'd compare it to families of officers killed in the line of duty suing Ford because their Crown Vic's bursted into flames, but thats just me. Could Agent Terry have been killed by something else? Sure, but the fact is he was murdered by a weapon obtained illegally that our DOJ/ATF provided. This has less to do with what killed Agent Terry, and more to do with negligence and criminal activity.

vantec08
02-02-2012, 10:03 AM
Maybe, maybe not, but it's 100% true.

Indeed. Some just cant handle reality.

Maestro Pistolero
02-02-2012, 10:22 AM
While I agree that the Fast & Furious debacle is shameful, this lawsuit is no different than a family suing a firearms manufacturer for building the weapon used in a drive-by. I hope it get's tossed as well. That gun could have sat in Mexico for centuries and never killed anyone...until someone picked it up. But that same person could just as easily used a crowbar or a hammer to kill someone.

You seem confused. You DO understand the family is suing the ATF for wrongful death that was enabled by the ATFs illegal international arms trading debacle, "Fast and Furious? There is no reasonable parallel to suing a legitimate gun manufacturer who is following the law.

Peter W Bush
02-02-2012, 10:35 AM
The ATF commited CRIMES when they gave that gangster a gun. If I give a felon a gun and he kills a BP agent, I'l probably get sued too.

Mesa Tactical
02-02-2012, 10:35 AM
I'd compare it to families of officers killed in the line of duty suing Ford because their Crown Vic's bursted into flames, but thats just me.

You are suggesting Holder be prosecuted based on product liability law? Which product in this scenario was defective?

You seem confused. You DO understand the family is suing the ATF for wrongful death that was enabled by the ATFs illegal international arms trading debacle, "Fast and Furious? There is no reasonable parallel to suing a legitimate gun manufacturer who is following the law.

I refuse to accept that Agent Terry's death was enabled by the mere presence of a firearm, wherever it came from, and I am pretty damned surprised to see self-style gun rights advocates insisting otherwise on a gun rights forum.

Your chain of causality inevitably leads right back to the manufacturer of the firearm in question. After all, they "enabled" Terry's death as much as the agency that moved the "killer gun" over the border.

Remember kiddies, guns don't kill people, people kill people, unless of course there are partisan political points to be scored!

RazzB7
02-02-2012, 10:47 AM
^^^^He makes the point I was trying to make more eloquently than I do.

jamesob
02-02-2012, 10:54 AM
Hopefully? You are hopeful for a legal precedent establishing that guns really do kill people after all?

Personally, I hope this is tossed out of court. The F&F charlie foxtrot is indeed a fiasco and Holder needs to be held to account for it. But he did not kill Agent Terry, some Mexican gangster did. obviously you don't know laws real well. the atf / doj commited multiple felonies that resulted in a death, they are responsible.

stix213
02-02-2012, 11:38 AM
I refuse to accept that Agent Terry's death was enabled by the mere presence of a firearm, wherever it came from, and I am pretty damned surprised to see self-style gun rights advocates insisting otherwise on a gun rights forum.

Your chain of causality inevitably leads right back to the manufacturer of the firearm in question. After all, they "enabled" Terry's death as much as the agency that moved the "killer gun" over the border.

Remember kiddies, guns don't kill people, people kill people, unless of course there are partisan political points to be scored!

The gun itself is not reponsible for the death, but..... The ATF knew exactly what kind of activities the cartels were planning with these guns. They knew that these guns weren't for 3 gun matches, or taking kids to the range for their first outing. The ATF knew that these guns were being specifically purchased to commit murder with them, and assisted in providing the guns anyway knowing full well murder was the intended outcome.

That is different than a gun manufacturer, or a gun dealer, who sells guns for a variety of purposes - none of which include murder.

The ATF assisted in the murder of Terry, not because they helped in providing guns alone, but because they knowingly and purposely assisted getting guns into the hands of people intent on using those guns for murder and murder alone.... and there is no surprise that the murder of Terry occured since that was the entire purpose of these sales from day 1.

If you know for a fact that someone attempting to purchase a gun is buying it specifically to murder people, you go out of your way to help them get said gun, and then they do in fact murder someone with it.... (which is exactly what happened in F&F) then yes you are a party to the crime.

gatesbox
02-02-2012, 11:48 AM
A little required reading to post in this thread:

Negligence shows the least level of culpability, intention being the most serious and recklessness of intermediate seriousness, overlapping with gross negligence. The distinction between recklessness and criminal negligence lies in the presence or absence of foresight as to the prohibited consequences. Recklessness is usually described as a 'malfeasance' where the defendant knowingly exposes another to the risk of injury. The fault lies in being willing to run the risk. But criminal negligence is a 'misfeasance or 'nonfeasance' (see omission), where the fault lies in the failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest. In some cases this failure can rise to the level of willful blindness where the individual intentionally avoids adverting to the reality of a situation. (In the United States, there may sometimes be a slightly different interpretation for willful blindness.) The degree of culpability is determined by applying a reasonable person standard. Criminal negligence becomes "gross" when the failure to foresee involves a "wanton disregard for human life" (see the discussion in corporate manslaughter).

Decoligny
02-02-2012, 11:57 AM
While I agree that the Fast & Furious debacle is shameful, this lawsuit is no different than a family suing a firearms manufacturer for building the weapon used in a drive-by. I hope it get's tossed as well. That gun could have sat in Mexico for centuries and never killed anyone...until someone picked it up. But that same person could just as easily used a crowbar or a hammer to kill someone.

I see this as a little different than your example.

F&F was more like someone handing over a handgun to his felon brother when his felon brother says he needs the gun to shoot his cheating girlfriend. It isn't the gun, it is the action of the owner in giving it to a known felon for the purpose of committing murder.

The ATF knew that the guns they were allowing to be sent across the border were going SPECIFICALLY to the drug cartels. They knew those guns, once in the hands of the cartels, WOULD be used for criminal purposes.

The ATF provided the means for the cartel to kill Agent Terry.

Maestro Pistolero
02-02-2012, 12:06 PM
You are suggesting Holder be prosecuted based on product liability law? Which product in this scenario was defective?



I refuse to accept that Agent Terry's death was enabled by the mere presence of a firearm, wherever it came from, and I am pretty damned surprised to see self-style gun rights advocates insisting otherwise on a gun rights forum.

Your chain of causality inevitably leads right back to the manufacturer of the firearm in question. After all, they "enabled" Terry's death as much as the agency that moved the "killer gun" over the border.

Remember kiddies, guns don't kill people, people kill people, unless of course there are partisan political points to be scored!

You have not connected the dots at all to me. If I knowingly arm a violent murderous gang, and my gun ends up being used to kill a federal agent, would you not think me culpable? Then why can't the ATF be held similarly responsible, civilly if not also criminally?

I get the urge to resist demonizing inanimate objects to ban them, but that's just not remotely what this is. You're logic here is, at best, stretchy.

It isn't the gun, it is the action of the owner in giving it to a known felon for the purpose of committing murder.Well put.

DrScorpio
02-02-2012, 12:29 PM
While I agree that the Fast & Furious debacle is shameful, this lawsuit is no different than a family suing a firearms manufacturer for building the weapon used in a drive-by. I hope it get's tossed as well. That gun could have sat in Mexico for centuries and never killed anyone...until someone picked it up. But that same person could just as easily used a crowbar or a hammer to kill someone.

While other people are showing you the flaws in your comparison, I might as well list my own. Its more like if the firearms manufacturer gave the weapons to felons who have done and will do drive-bys.

Mesa Tactical
02-02-2012, 12:34 PM
You have not connected the dots at all to me. If I knowingly arm a violent murderous gang, and my gun ends up being used to kill a federal agent, would you not think me culpable?

Are you still culpable if the murderer used a different gun than one you supplied?

What is this supposed to be about? The ATF running guns to known criminals (bad) or supplying a SPECIFIC firearm to the cartels that was found at the scene of a murder (irrelevant if you don't believe guns kill people)?

The ATF certainly has something to answer for in supplying weapons to the cartels. Did they cause Terry's death? No. Did they even contribute to his death in any manner? Not if you are one of those people (like me) who insist the agent of murder is the murderer, not the tool the murderer used.

stix213
02-02-2012, 12:38 PM
Are you still culpable if the murderer used a different gun than one you supplied?

What is this supposed to be about? The ATF running guns to known criminals (bad) or supplying a SPECIFIC firearm to the cartels that was found at the scene of a murder (irrelevant if you don't believe guns kill people)?

The ATF certainly has something to answer for in supplying weapons to the cartels. Did they cause Terry's death? No. Did they even contribute to his death in any manner? Not if you are one of those people (like me) who insist the agent of murder is the murderer, not the tool the murderer used.

So you would say that a get-away driver has nothing to do with a murder if they didn't personally pull the trigger? All they are doing is driving a car, like anyone does, so what's the big deal? :rolleyes:

woods
02-02-2012, 12:41 PM
On the other hand if you give a handgun to an illegal immigrant knowing he's in a gang and intends to use that weapon for evil you go to jail. Yes they should be held responsible for f & f if they can hold us responsible for doing the same thing.

Mesa Tactical
02-02-2012, 12:41 PM
So you would say that a get-away driver has nothing to do with a murder if they didn't personally pull the trigger? :rolleyes:

Are we talking about getaway drivers (accessory to a crime) or the ATF in this thread? Does the lawsuit in question seriously name the ATF and Eric Holder as accessories to the murder of Agent Terry? If so, it's going down in flames.

Some of you guys are coming up with pretty weird analogies.

And you are using the rhetoric of the antis.

stix213
02-02-2012, 12:43 PM
Are we talking about getaway drivers (accessory to a crime) or the ATF in this thread? Does the lawsuit in question seriously name the ATF and Eric Holder as accessories to the murder of Agent Terry? If so, it's going down in flames.

Some of you guys are coming up with pretty weird analogies.

And you are using the rhetoric of the antis.

Uh no

The anti's say that anyone who sells a gun, that happens to be used later in a crime, should be responsible.

We are saying anyone who sells a gun to someone who they know for a fact intends to commit murder with it, should be responsible.

I'm seriously confused why you can't understand the difference between those two.

Drivedabizness
02-02-2012, 12:53 PM
Lots of logical fail in this thread. I mean LOTS of fail.

Did ATF in fact ORDER FFL's to process straw purchases? Yes - a fact not in dispute.
Was such done in violation of law? Yes - a fact not in dispute
Potential counterargument - cops conduct "sales" of illegal items (people, drugs, guns) all the time. True - but in such cases, the "contraband" is closely monitored, every possible effort is made to apprehend illegal purchasers, and the "evidence" is accounted for.

The question of whether this activity was criminal or not needs to be determined - on its face it may well rise to that level since there was no concomitant effort to abide by any of those standards by our own LEO's, let alone to do so in coordination with Mexican LEO's. In fact, the case can be made that a conspiracy existed to violate both US and Mexican law.

Whether criminal or not, at the very least the evidence supports an on its face claim that the negligence of US officials led directly to arming people who got into a gun battle with US LEO well within the borders of the US.

IANAL - but you don't need to be to see how much this whole thing stinks. I hope his family gets every dime they are asking for and I also hope every swinging d*ck who knew about this and didn't try to stop it faces every appropriate sanction.

kaligaran
02-02-2012, 12:59 PM
Ah, I finally realized what mesatactical is trying to say.

That the DoJ should be held accountable for the gun sales and the rediculous F&F fiasco. But the death of an individual person with a specific gun from the F&F sale is not the appropriate charge. That took me a bit to realize.

This is a great thread. I'm not adding comments, just following.
:lurk5:

Decoligny
02-02-2012, 2:20 PM
Ah, I finally realized what mesatactical is trying to say.

That the DoJ should be held accountable for the gun sales and the rediculous F&F fiasco. But the death of an individual person with a specific gun from the F&F sale is not the appropriate charge. That took me a bit to realize.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is a great thread. I'm not adding comments, just following. :lurk5:

Gee, sure looks like a comment up there.

kaligaran
02-02-2012, 2:26 PM
Gee, sure looks like a comment up there.

lol I meant "I'm not adding an opinion..." :)

MP301
02-02-2012, 6:06 PM
It should be noted that the Firearms dealer who sold the gun(s) is also named in the lawsuit.

Im not sure if its a tactical decision to further put the dot.gov in worse position because the dealer will undoubtedly add to thier case on how they were forced to do it...or maybe they think they would hurt thier position by not going after all parties involved with the gun getting to the shooter...or even if they actually think the deal is partially to blame.

I see Mesa Tactical's point clearly - not putting blame on the gun itself. The antis do that all the time. You cant have it both ways. In other words, if Fast and Furious had not happened, would the shooting have still likely have occurred? Yeah, probably with a gun from El Salvador or the Mexican Government.

We are all pissed about F&F and even more so as things drag on and those responsible are not paying the price thier roles. It is obnoxiously obvious why they did it too.

That said, even though Mesa Tactical is correct, the positive parts of this lawsuit should be considered. The so called wronged party (The Terry family) is now offically on the warpath and this cannot be ignored.

Besides, if they dont find a way to get the suit dismissed, the Gov will settle. For that matter, the gun dealers insurancew comopany may decide its cheaper to settle as well.

Whatever happens, this interesting turn of events will change the game some it looks like.

Jack L
02-02-2012, 6:36 PM
obviously you don't know laws real well. the atf / doj commited multiple felonies that resulted in a death, they are responsible.

>>> A+ <<<

mag360
02-02-2012, 7:15 PM
Hopefully? You are hopeful for a legal precedent establishing that guns really do kill people after all?

Personally, I hope this is tossed out of court. The F&F charlie foxtrot is indeed a fiasco and Holder needs to be held to account for it. But he did not kill Agent Terry, some Mexican gangster did.

what about the 3rd gun! the missing SKS that was only spoken of during the recorded tapes with lone wolf trading co.

kcbrown
02-02-2012, 8:09 PM
Lots of logical fail in this thread. I mean LOTS of fail.

Did ATF in fact ORDER FFL's to process straw purchases? Yes - a fact not in dispute.
Was such done in violation of law? Yes - a fact not in dispute
Potential counterargument - cops conduct "sales" of illegal items (people, drugs, guns) all the time. True - but in such cases, the "contraband" is closely monitored, every possible effort is made to apprehend illegal purchasers, and the "evidence" is accounted for.

The question of whether this activity was criminal or not needs to be determined - on its face it may well rise to that level since there was no concomitant effort to abide by any of those standards by our own LEO's, let alone to do so in coordination with Mexican LEO's. In fact, the case can be made that a conspiracy existed to violate both US and Mexican law.


It's worse than this. It's not just that "no concomitant effort was made", it's that the effort was explicitly and intentionally prevented. The ATF agents testified that they were ordered to stand down their surveillance.

That puts this squarely on the "intentionally commited a crime" side of the equation. The ATF intentionally aided and abetted organized criminal organizations, and those organizations used the fruits of that aid during the commission of a crime: the murder of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.


If it is permissible and proper to prosecute someone for knowingly assisting a felon in the acquisition of a firearm for the purposes of committing crimes, when said person knows that the felon will use the firearm for those purposes, then it is permissible and proper for the Terry family to sue the ATF for assisting the cartels in acquiring the weapon(s) that were used to kill Brian Terry.

It's as simple as that.

Drivedabizness
02-02-2012, 8:23 PM
KCBrown - I agree.

But I just watched Megyn Kelly on Fox explain how this will never go anywhere. I hope she's wrong but...she's hot and smart and a lawyer and no lefty

greasemonkey
02-02-2012, 8:23 PM
MesaTactical, you're really the only one I see here jumping about and down about blaming the gun...I don't see anyone else blaming the gun or the gun manufacturer, why did you start defending a perspective that's not present and not relevant?

I think these two quotes lay it out very clearly and we can end-thread until the lawsuit progresses along.

obviously you don't know laws real well. the atf / doj commited multiple felonies that resulted in a death, they are responsible.It's worse than this. It's not just that "no concomitant effort was made", it's that the effort was explicitly and intentionally prevented. The ATF agents testified that they were ordered to stand down their surveillance.

That puts this squarely on the "intentionally commited a crime" side of the equation. The ATF intentionally aided and abetted organized criminal organizations, and those organizations used the fruits of that aid during the commission of a crime: the murder of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.


If it is permissible and proper to prosecute someone for knowingly assisting a felon in the acquisition of a firearm for the purposes of committing crimes, when said person knows that the felon will use the firearm for those purposes, then it is permissible and proper for the Terry family to sue the ATF for assisting the cartels in acquiring the weapon(s) that were used to kill Brian Terry.

It's as simple as that.

kcbrown
02-02-2012, 8:40 PM
KCBrown - I agree.

But I just watched Megyn Kelly on Fox explain how this will never go anywhere. I hope she's wrong but...she's hot and smart and a lawyer and no lefty

I agree that it's not likely to go anywhere, but that's because government generally protects its own at all levels. More precisely, there's government, and then there's "little people". The Terry family are "little people". They will see no justice done, and I expect all guilty parties will walk away from this (not just this lawsuit, but everything) with nary a scratch.

ALSystems
02-03-2012, 6:54 AM
KC,
Its rather depressing that you think this case will go nowhere.

It would be entertaining to see the government argue this case. Arguments like:

(1) Didn't really know that guy was a straw purchaser although he bought a bunch of AKs with cash.

(2) Didn't know that the drug cartel who ultimatly got the guns was going to murder people with them. They probably thought the guns were actually going to be used for a wall display decoration.

cineski
02-03-2012, 1:32 PM
I don't think 25 million is enough. Yes it's tax payer money, but the more stupid hurts, the less stupid there is.

Mesa Tactical
02-03-2012, 3:06 PM
We are saying anyone who sells a gun to someone who they know for a fact intends to commit murder with it, should be responsible.

You didn't answer my question: Is ATF still culpable if the murderer used a different gun than one ATF supplied?

It should be noted that the Firearms dealer who sold the gun(s) is also named in the lawsuit.

BINGO! It's a gun grabber move. That's EXACTLY what the antis would do. Because it's the GUN that killed Agent Terry.

Im not sure if its a tactical decision to further put the dot.gov in worse position because the dealer will undoubtedly add to thier case on how they were forced to do it...or maybe they think they would hurt thier position by not going after all parties involved with the gun getting to the shooter...or even if they actually think the deal is partially to blame.

Occam's Razor says it's simply a gun grabber lawyer using a gun grabber legal strategy and gun grabber rhetoric.

The same rhetoric that has filled up most of this thread.

kcbrown
02-03-2012, 3:12 PM
I don't think 25 million is enough. Yes it's tax payer money, but the more stupid hurts, the less stupid there is.

The problem is that it's the federal government that is being sued. For stupid to hurt them, the amounts involved would have to be in the tens to hundreds of billions.

Not gonna happen.

stix213
02-03-2012, 3:17 PM
You didn't answer my question: Is ATF still culpable if the murderer used a different gun than one ATF supplied?


I didn't answer because that didn't occur in the universe we both occupy, so is irrelevant.

Same as this hypothetical: Would the ATF be culpable if instead of thousands of guns, instead they provided an H bomb that was then set off by the cartel members on the border? Don't blame the H bomb right? They could have gotten a nuke from an old Russian lab, from North Korea, or maybe even Iran, so it wouldn't matter if it was from the ATF right? What if the ATF gave the cartels 1,700 nukes, but the one they set off on the border came from Russia? Would the ATF still be culpable for El Paso vaporizing?

jamesob
02-03-2012, 4:31 PM
The problem is that it's the federal government that is being sued. For stupid to hurt them, the amounts involved would have to be in the tens to hundreds of billions.

Not gonna happen.

It's not the intent to bankrupt, that's not going to happen. The point is to be compessated and to make a point.

dantodd
02-03-2012, 5:02 PM
In this case the ATF facilitated and conspired to commit a straw purchase and conspired to commit perjury on a 4473 form. They should be held accountable (or not) the same as anyone else who conspires to acquire a firearm for the commission of a violent crime.

vantec08
02-03-2012, 5:20 PM
I didn't answer because that didn't occur in the universe we both occupy, so is irrelevant.

Same as this hypothetical: Would the ATF be culpable if instead of thousands of guns, instead they provided an H bomb that was then set off by the cartel members on the border? Don't blame the H bomb right? They could have gotten a nuke from an old Russian lab, from North Korea, or maybe even Iran, so it wouldn't matter if it was from the ATF right? What if the ATF gave the cartels 1,700 nukes, but the one they set off on the border came from Russia? Would the ATF still be culpable for El Paso vaporizing?


So let me see if I understand . . . . the country of origin of the H bomb was under a specific license contract to the ATF to do as ordered. That right so far?

Maestro Pistolero
02-03-2012, 5:30 PM
Originally Posted by Mesa Tactical
You didn't answer my question: Is ATF still culpable if the murderer used a different gun than one ATF supplied?

Yes, because the guns they DID supply helped fortify their position, and aided and abetted the murderers. Explain how illegally making known murderers better equipped to murder isn't a contribution to murder.

kcbrown
02-03-2012, 5:32 PM
It's not the intent to bankrupt, that's not going to happen. The point is to be compessated and to make a point.

Oh, please. :rolleyes:

"Making a point" fails to make a point if the amount in question is nothing but pocket change to the entity being sued.

If someone sues me and I wind up being ordered to pay one dollar, and my legal costs are free, do you really think I'm going to care at all as a result?

"If you do that again, then you'll be back here in court, and we'll tell you more sternly to not do it again. So you better not do it again, because we might even wag our finger at you, and you wouldn't like that!"


Yeah, I'm sure the ATF and the rest of the federal government will be quaking in their proverbial boots after having to hand over .000625% of their yearly money supply. Would you be quaking in your boots after being told to hand over 62.5 cents out of your 100K (after taxes) annual salary? Yeah, I bet you would. Why, you might almost go broke paying that kind of money! :rolleyes:

jamesob
02-03-2012, 6:00 PM
You don't get it. The money is really irrelevant.the bad press and the humiliation that the ATF/ doj and Obama administration is going to have is the real value here. so I think you are over thinking this a bit. Oh, please. :rolleyes:

"Making a point" fails to make a point if the amount in question is nothing but pocket change to the entity being sued.

If someone sues me and I wind up being ordered to pay one dollar, and my legal costs are free, do you really think I'm going to care at all as a result?

"If you do that again, then you'll be back here in court, and we'll tell you more sternly to not do it again. So you better not do it again, because we might even wag our finger at you, and you wouldn't like that!"


Yeah, I'm sure the ATF and the rest of the federal government will be quaking in their proverbial boots after having to hand over .000625% of their yearly money supply. Would you be quaking in your boots after being told to hand over 62.5 cents out of your 100K (after taxes) annual salary? Yeah, I bet you would. Why, you might almost go broke paying that kind of money! :rolleyes:

kcbrown
02-03-2012, 6:37 PM
You don't get it. The money is really irrelevant.the bad press and the humiliation that the ATF/ doj and Obama administration is going to have is the real value here. so I think you are over thinking this a bit.

That's true only if the administration actually cares about that. It should be clear it doesn't.

With the mainstream media having been silent on F&F so far, what in the world makes you think that this lawsuit will generate any bad press (at least from the MSM)? For any media outlet that actually wants to publish some juicy news, F&F has been like a gold mine. But the MSM outlets refuse to partake.

In light of that, what's one more lawsuit?


If this were any other target entity (a big corporation, for instance), you'd be right. But with this entity, I don't think you are.