- “Cleveland police union plans to sue toy gun makers“;
- They all did it: “Families of San Bernardino Shooting Sue Facebook, Google, Twitter”;
- “Recruiting on campus might be an age discrimination violation“;
- “N.J.: “Drunken driver hurt in crash sues bars for serving him alcohol“;
- California memorabilia law could tank small bookstores;
- Eleventh Circuit: employee caught vacationing while on medical leave can sue over firing;
- Before bringing a monkey into the courthouse in your purse, read this;
- Federal judge orders UPS delivery giant to pay nearly $247 million for not asking questions about bulk shipments from Indian reservations (they contained untaxed cigarettes).
6 Comments
Re: UPS, how much “willful blindness” (or restated, duty to act as an arm of law enforcement) is ok would be a fascinating law review article.
Worse, a duty is imposed on UPS that is not imposed on actual law enforcement…
There’s always a matter of degree—not that I support what was done to UPS–but allowing one’s resources to be used in crimes/fraud, at some point, creates responsibility. The problem is that if you give statists an inch, they take a mile.
Cleveland police union plans to sue toy gun makers“;
Can the toy gun makers make restitution with play money?
The “gun” in the Tamir Rice case wasn’t exactly a toy.
Tamir Rice had an Air-Soft pellet gun. Air-Soft guns fire plastic pellets, not metal BBs using compressed air generated with an electric pump built into the gun rather than a tank of CO2, or a manual pump (older BB guns)
The pellets are harmless even at point blank range, unless you take one right in an eye.
The Air-Soft system was not designed for toys, it was designed for making fake guns for police/military live fire training.
Air-Soft has developed toy versions due to demand as they are safer than traditional BB guns.
While it was released that it was an Air-Soft gun that Tamir Rice had, it’s never to my knowledge made public specifically which model he had.
So isn’t inquiring of a customer because they are indian on a reservation discriminatory on it’s face?