There is a notable torts verdict in Maryland where a jury handed down a multi-million dollar verdict against Walmart for selling a shotgun to an employee who used it to commit suicide. The verdict raises difficult questions over Walmart’s responsibility for the suicide of Jacob Mace, who lied to store employees, under common law torts.
The family of Mace brought the lawsuit, alleging that Walmart employees knew that he was suicidal and struggling with mental health issues. They focused on his communications with a co-worker Christina O’Shea in which he wrote about feeling “broken” and “nothing helps. I just want it to end. Goodbye.” He also wrote that he intended to “Slit wrists. Buy a gun.”
O’Shea told assistant manager, Brennan Jones, about her concerns. Jones said that police should be called and, when Mace returned to work, spoke to Mace about the company’s counseling services and asked him how he was doing. He told him that “You know, we were worried about you,” but Mace assured him that he was fine.
Neither Jones nor O’Shea was involved in selling the gun to Mace. The sale was made by Eric McLaughlin, who testified that he had no idea of Mace’s mental health struggles. Mace told McLaughlin that the gun would be a present for his wife.
The family argued that Jones should have alerted other store managers about the conversation between O’Shea and himself. Moreover, the awareness of employees like Jones was then attributed to the company as a whole.
I find the verdict concerning on a number of levels. First, employers have to straddle a difficult line between protecting employees’ privacy and addressing threats to employees or the public. In this case, Mace insisted that he was doing fine and Jones had taken steps to confirm his status.
Second, Mace lied to the Walmart employee. There was no reason why McLaughlin would refuse the sale.
The case reminds me of Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, which I teach in my torts class. In the 1974 case, Prosinjit Podder, an Indian Graduate student at Berkeley, fell in love with Tatiana Tarasoff. When she stated that she wanted to date other men, Podder went to counseling at the University Health Service and was treated by psychologist, Dr. Lawrence Moore. When he told Moore that he wanted to get a gun and kill Tarasoff, Moore sent a letter to campus police, who interviewed Podder and decided that he was not a risk. Podder then went ahead and murdered Tarasoff.
Justice Mathew O. Tobriner held that “… the confidential character of patient-psychotherapist communications must yield to the extent that disclosure is essential to avert danger to others. The protective privilege ends where the public peril begins.”
As a result, the hospital was held liable for the criminal actions of a third party — something that usually (but not always) cuts off proximate causation. It also rejects strong arguments made by doctors that such liability would create a chilling effect on counseling. A large number of patients often express their anger by focusing it on individuals and stating an intent to “kill that guy.” In the vast majority of such cases, the open disclosure allows the matter to be addressed and defused. However, if the patient knows that the doctor will have to tell authorities, such feelings are less likely to be expressed and addressed.
In this case, you have a retailer with an employee who expressed suicidal ideations. Jones did the right thing in seeking police involvement and then personally speaking with Mace. According to this verdict, the store should have barred the purchase. But for how long? What steps are necessary to satisfy this duty?
As with Tarasoff, there is no clear line on what employers should do and when they should do it.
The Second Amendment protects the right to gun ownership, though that right is not absolute. Additionally, this employee has privacy rights. Indeed, a memo to all employees could have been the subject of a different tort action for the disclosure of embarrassing private information, negligent infliction of emotional distress, or other claims.
From the perspective of Jones, he had one employee who expressed concerns over another employee’s mental health. He spoke to the second employee, who assured him that he was doing fine. Under these circumstances, Mace could have purchased the gun from any other store.
This is a tragic case, and it may be difficult to overturn on appeal. I understand the family’s anger that more was not done to save Mace from himself. I am unsure of how far the store could have gone. Jones would have needed to tell all employees not to sell Mace, any sharp objects, guns, or products capable of inducing overdoses or harm. That could trigger a lawsuit. If he fired or suspended Mace, he might be sued under disability laws.
If he did fire or suspend Mace, it is not clear that a gun sale could be withheld without something more than the word of a friend when the individual is denying such ideations. The right move is to seek police intervention, which Jones suggested.
The complaint does allege that Walmart had a “blacklist” for individuals who were suspected of any mental problems. If so, that does raise a legitimate question about why Mace was not added to the list, at least as a precautionary matter. However, these are difficult and fluid circumstances for a manager to address, particularly in a relatively short time period.
The jury awarded approximately $2.5 million in economic damages and $8 million in non-economic damages. Those damages may be reduced due to state caps on non-economic damages.
Here is the complaint in the case: Brady v. Walmart
“The Second Amendment protects the right to gun ownership, though that right is not absolute.”
– Professor Turley
_____________________
If the rights, freedoms, privileges, and immunities of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not absolute, they don’t exist.
Those rights, freedoms, privileges, and immunities of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were conferred upon the American people and are held by them alone.
Professor Turley, judges, officials, pundits et al. will have amended the Constitution without authority and outside of the constitutional amendment process.
That would constitute usurpation of power they do not possess and the imposition of dictatorship.
Certainly the American Founders and Framers were sufficiently intelligent and competent when they codified fundamental law.
People must adapt to freedom; freedom does not adapt to people; dictatorship does.
re: the existence or creation of a “special relationships” that may serve as criterion for liability:
(I served several years ago in a case where a female was found on foot wandering in the dark [very late evening, if I recall] on RR tracks. State police took her in for observation, found no substance abuse/issue; she answered questions to their satisfaction; her demeanor and conduct were “normal;” and finding no reason to continue holding her, they released her in the middle of the night @ 1:00 a.m. She wandered back onto the RR tracks, was struck by train and lost both her legs but survived. (Notwithstanding qualified immunity, the state police were sued; the family had argued that a “special relationship” was created by virtue of police taking her in and holding her for observation.) No relevant case law. The propensity for a sympathetic jury caused us to settle early for a modest amount. Like in the present case, where the “victim” and impaired person are one and the same, the “duty to warn” can be replaced with a “duty to protect” a person from himself/herself. And that’s where “special relationship” a/o duty to confine/commit become tantamount factors.)
“And that’s where “special relationship” a/o duty to confine/commit become tantamount factors.)”
One example where the law clearly is an ass…
When Jacob Mace mentioned slitting his wrists he eliminated means as the causation of his eventual suicide. No one quoted him as saying, “I’d kill myself, if only I had a firearm.” Clearly the man was set on killing himself regardless of means, so unless his employers possessed the ability of removing his access to knives, tall buildings, dangerous medications, ropes, and every other conceivable means of self-harm, Jacob Mace was the one and only person who could’ve prevented his demise.
Pulling a trigger has a far lower threshhold for death than taking an hour or so to bleed out from cutting ones wrists. With a trigger pull there is no sensation of pain that precedes the fatal act.
OldSchoolFool, you know this and still say that.
Yes, knives, dangerous medications, ropes – all the others are unable to take a single thought and turn it into death. Tall buildings are not available in the privacy of the home. Often it takes only a short delay to save a life. Almost half of all gun deaths in the US are from suicidal gun shots. If other, much less expensive means are available, why are guns so high for preference? It’s because they work, without significant planning, without any fear they will fail and be damaged in some permanent capacity.
The US could have Red Flag laws – in Trump’s first term he said that is what he wanted to do – take the guns first and then let the courts figure it out. Red Flag laws might not have saved this guy’s life but it would have avoided the guilty feelings of the guy who sold him the gun or among those who had warning and were unable to stop it.
Vehicles, cliffs, and bridges are immediate and final ends …. and totally within one’s control. The options are many, and all within the scope of the individual’s own responsibility – no one else’s.
Has the state of Maryland (could be call Wonderland thought) now tipped over into Communism? They now expect layman to turn in their fellow citizen who might be expected to commit suicide, [WHY ARE PURCHASING A SHOTGUN?] well officer Johnny Overthar talked like there was no tomorrow, he must be thinking about killing himself. With this ruling it won’t be long before employees will be sued because a fellow employee committed suicide and darn it you should have known: that-al- be 25 million, thank you please.
Do you believe these prices just can’t understand how they justify them!
The jury must have had Ham Sandwiches with Livarot Cheese and Mustard, complements of the plaintiffs’ attorney: the verdict does stink to high heaven after all.
GW – it might have been a little different. The suicidal guy might have been involved with a family member of yours and come over and killed the whole bunch while you were away and then killed himself in you living room. Pets? Dead. Neighbors visiting? Dead. How many bodies would you find? How many caskets would you buy?
Any gun on a nightstand isn’t going to help against a shotgun in close quarters. They know him; he seems sad. They invite him in and, from under a coat he pulls the shotgun out and begins blasting.
They aren’t “laymen”, they are close co-workers, spending as much or more awake time with him each week than his family did.
Following Jack Smith Testimony, FBI Director Fires Multiple FBI Agents Tied To ‘Get Trump’ Efforts
https://x.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/2014409617652978100?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2014409617652978100%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fbobhoge%2F2026%2F01%2F23%2Fyoure-fired-kash-patel-ousts-multiple-fbi-agents-tied-to-get-trump-efforts-n2198463
Following Jack Smith’s testimony under the duress of subpoena, FBI Director Patel has fired eight of the senior FBI officers who worked with Jack Smith on Arctic Frost to obtain secret subpoenas of 420 Republicans, most of whom are current or former elected Senate and House members and other elected Republicans.
The firings include the special agent in charge of the Atlanta field office and the acting assistant director overseeing the New York field office, both of whom were tied to the two major federal criminal probes into Trump. A former special agent in charge from New Orleans, who had since moved into a different role within the bureau, was also removed. In Miami, up to six FBI agents were reportedly let go due to their conduct while involved in the bureau’s search of Mar-a-Lago.
Patel also ordered the seizure the trophies the FBI’s leading participants in the Jack Smith/FBI operation commissioned to be cast in order to award themselves. He did not comment whether legal action would be taken regarding the use of taxpayer funds to pay for the trophies.
“FBI Director Patel has fired eight of the senior FBI officers who worked with Jack Smith on Arctic Frost ”
That is either a constructive start, or political posturing. Now, if you can assure me that he is taking action to deny those scumbags their Federal pensions, I will be inclined toward the former alternative. Otherwise…
General “Old Dastardly Doggie” Hull, what was your MOS, and what awards, campaigns, and theater of operations did you serve in?
This certainly sets the tone. These agents were assigned a task and successfully completed that task. It makes sense that the Trump administration would remove those agents in favor of those who fail.
Wait until you see the vast number of trophy coins the Trump administration has commissioned. I think there will be one given to every ICE agent who kills an American citizen.
This is tragic but I don’t think Walmart is liable. The manager and employee did the right thing within their rather limited capacity. The suicidal man ultimately lied when purchasing the gun from an unwitting employee. Where does the store’s liability end? Should they have alerted every other gun store in the region? Should they not sell him anything else in the store that he could use to end his life? Should they take his car keys away so he can’t drive into a bridge abutment? Ultimately, he was responsible for his own death. A business could reasonably make it policy NOT to ask after their employees’ well being to limit their liability.
Human rites should only be Planned by state-approved clinical corporations using socially-approved instruments in sanctuary states under a veil of privacy and the carbon pollutants of demos-cracy sequestered in darkness.
James Eagan Holmes was under the care of a psychiatrist, who had serious concerns that Holmes could be a danger to others, but was unable to alert police to this fact.
Abortive ideation entertained to relieve a selfie “burden”.
Consider this: The same people that believe Walmart should be sued into oblivion for selling a gun that was used to commit suicide are also in favor of legalizing doctor-assisted suicide.
From abortion to assisted suicide, the throughline isn’t a consistent moral principle about life. It’s who gets to decide. When the standard shifts but authority always flows to the state, the issue isn’t compassion, it’s power.
. Is the principle not to kill? Suicide kills a person.
The police are the intervention to either ascertain if killing of oneself or another is likely or to ascertain if the person understands the principle.
Tarasoff should have been notified by police. Ultimately she’s the victim. Therapy of such should be done under supervision.
In the second case police were not notified. Walmart knew he had spoken of suicide. The fault is improper notification. You’d say the State has power? The State has been given power in all homicides freely by the citizens in recognition of the principle.
Olly, where is the fault in my thinking?
Abortion is homicide. Clearly the fetus exhibits a essential innate desire to live simply by persisting, which can be interpreted no other way. The fetus is a completely separate human being that defends itself in the womb from attacks by its own mother (see excerpt below).
Suicide, by a person who is serious about it, is a private personal decision that cannot be interdicted by government; it is a decision to jump from a tall building, for example, that cannot be precluded, and, of course, it must be allowed by legislation and is in rational nations and states. The question of governmental control of suicide is moot.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
And here are some bonus scientific facts that prove it’s not just an organ or part of the mother.
During its early stages of development, the placenta of the unborn child secretes neurokinin B-containing phosphocoline molecules, which protects the child from detection by its mother’s immune system, because it can be interpreted as a foreign body and is subject to attack. This is because the fetus is of non-identical genetic material to the mother due to their different DNA.
Also present in the unborn child are lymphocytic suppressor cells which stop interleukin 2 (IL2) cells from signalling cytotoxic T cells to kill the child. The purpose of IL2 cells is to distinguish between self and non-self (parts of the mother and foreign parts). The lymphocytic cells would not need to inhibit the response of the cytotoxic T cells if the IL2 did not signal the feuts as a foreign body. This would not occur if it was one of her own organs because the response would not be initiated.
An organ does not have its own organs. The fetal heartbeat begins at around 22 days after fertilisation as I said earlier, and brain waves are detected at about six weeks, which means the unborn child has a heart and a brain. At seven weeks, all other organs are present, although not fully developed, which would mean not only did the mother have an organ with different DNA to her, but this organ also has its own organ systems, and so the mother has an extra heart, brain, stomach, liver, etc.
– Emma Greenland-Broadsmith
OT
Minneapolis is in full secession. Where’s “Crazy Abe” Lincoln when you need him? He’s reinforcing a cross-border transfer remittance program in Somalia. Film at eleven!
“Minneapolis is in full secession. Where’s “Crazy Abe” Lincoln when you need him?” Mad King George/X/Anonymous has never left Professor Turley’s blog…
Why don’t you have articles by author X on the Marxists Internet Archive?
https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/faq.htm
The writer is alive and well and politically active. The MIA’s Charter forbids us from building an archive for a writer who is still politically active. There are several reasons for this:
(1) It ensures that the MIA stays out of current disputes and
(2) remains independent of all political parties and groups; Also,
(3) if a writer is still alive, they can build their own web site. This does not prevent the MIA from using material also from politically active writers in an editorial role or in support of a subject section, so long as we have the author’s permission.
Airborne Dog, you really need to resume taking your meds…
Is that Airborne Dog or Conservative Black Democrat?
“Is that Airborne Dog or Conservative Black Democrat?”
I stated my opinion. There is a regular “anonymous” poster on here who exhibits all of the subject and style characteristics of a user who previously called himself “Old Airborne Dog” prior to the changes that prevented many (possibly all) unregistered commenters from providing a consistent identification. One of those characteristics is conflating two commenters, who both previously identified themselves as “George”. One of those commenters is a Marxist fool; the other places great weight on the original text and context of the Constitution, to the point of dismissing all Amendments to that document, and any societal changes that have taken place in the U. S. since it was enacted. They are clearly not the same person; it would be difficult to imagine taking positions that are more conflicting.
Are there efficacious meds for a rapidly decompensating pathological narcissist in extremis?
The “meds” comment was facetious. Most of the medications so prescribed are more harmful than beneficial, addictive, and represent not sound medicine, but the marketing prowess of Big Pharma.
Felony Investigation Into Obama’s Fingerprints All Over Investigations of Trump And Clinton
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2026/01/22/obamas_fingerprints_all_over_investigations_of_trump_and_clinton_1160121.html?mc_cid=496c73ade2&mc_eid=febb5a4d8f
You would never see this story in the New York Times or any other Democrat analyst or commentator. Unless perhaps to save from condemnation with faint criticism.
In the run-up to the 2016 Democratic Party convention, FBI Director James Comey gained access to at least eight thumb drives containing large volumes of former Secretary Hillary Clinton’s sensitive State Department emails – as well as many directly from President Obama – that had been been compromised by five different foreign intelligence agency’s hackers.
That explosive new batch of physical evidence, now revealed in recently declassified documents provided by CIA Director John Radcliff, confirmed what CIA Director John Brennan had been telling both President Obama and Comey in multiple presidential briefings for years.
Instead of including that evidence in his ongoing investigation of Clinton opened after referrals from House hearings, Comey rushed to order the closure of that investigation into whether Clinton improperly transmitted and received classified material from a private, unsecured server she kept in her basement. Comey also took the unprecedented and extraordinary step of bypassing the attorney general and personally exonerating Clinton of wrongdoing during an unusual press conference on July 5, 2016.
Although such trips take long prior planning, just a few short hours after Comey exonerated her regarding her use of a private email server, Obama flew with Clinton aboard Air Force One to help launch her multicity campaign tour during which he officially endorsed Clinton as his preferred White House successor.
Comey’s decision to remove the cloud of scandal over Clinton’s campaign, allowing the president to get on with the business of of using his presidential resources to campaign for her even before she was the nominee, is just one avenue of investigation the Justice Department is pursuing in wide-ranging probes whose targets include a figure largely unscathed by his era’s scandals: former President Barack Obama.
Attorney General Pam Bondi said prosecutors are investigating, among other things, “possible coordination between the Clinton campaign and the Obama administration to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.”
Jason Reding Quiñones, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, has impaneled a grand jury to hear evidence related to an alleged “grand criminal conspiracy” by Obama and Biden officials to enlist law enforcement and intelligence agencies in rigging elections and carrying out political espionage against Donald Trump.
Severe Schizophrenia Here—Scroll Past.
That’s not schizophrenia; it’s well-performed PTSD from meritorious hissy fit service in the qualified hazardous duty area of the mess hall at Fort Polk, Louisiana.
Would this same prog-infested jury of activists also find that butterfly in Indonesia what is flapping its wings responsible for the ice storm flowing across America at this time? This sort of illogic will lead to a never-ending line of grifters upon the capitalist system (I do think that is their end game).
“Would this same prog-infested jury of activists also find that butterfly in Indonesia what is flapping its wings responsible for the ice storm flowing across America at this time?”
Nope. However, they would doubtless buy a theory about how the coming Ice Age in the 1970s resulting from the Arctic ozone hole that was caused by use of petrochemical fuels, magically transformed into decades of catastrophic global warming, which somehow just recently triggered a near zero hurricane season and worldwide cold weather. And they would no doubt agree to a judgement of several trillion dollars against some entity that the plaintiff’s attorneys claimed bore the responsibility for that phenomenon, regardless of any rationally demonstrated connection to it.
Anti-gun jurisdiction renders anti-gun verdict.
Film at 11.
Excellent article. Perhaps, the Judge allowed and perhaps even promoted the loaded question (a form of complex question that contains a controversial assumption, e.g., a presumption of guilt, common example: “Have you stopped beating your wife lately”). In this case, the Pro Se 5 ish “civil” suit fallacious prosecution strategy in the form of “Have you stopped selling guns to anyone you have not disseminated unverified and/or Protected Personal Information(PPI), including every human in the universe yet?”.
The realities are actually much simpler:
1. Like Boasberg kangaroo courts, Walmart’s defense didn’t (and will not have) a chance
2. Seeing this strategy and its success — pillage and destroy strategies are now obvious options for the Ghengas Khan-like progressive oligarch allies and champions in MD. One would have to be an idiot to create or maintain a business therein.
3. If you haven’t figured out how this could possibly happened in America, perhaps this will help: https://www.listal.com/viewimage/27964839
Difficult case. After the fact it seems so clear to many but as it occurs the actions of the person are muddled and often variable. Suicidal individuals can be very adept at hiding their symptoms or put them to rest when they have “spelled the beans to some people” and then suddenly come back and say “I’m fine now, just had a bad day”. And then they act normal right up till they kill themselves. I question the verdict against Walmart because the people listening or hearing his complaints had limited options. I do question where the family was in all of this. Were they sucked into the “I’m fine” scenario or did they ignore obvious signs. Was the lawsuit a result of guilt they felt for not taking action and an attempt to lessen the guilt. Strange there is no mention of a psychiatrist being involved
Even well trained and experienced mental health professionals can miss something like this. For every suicide there are uncounted cases of threats made but not carried out.
As is often typical a suicide leaves everyone questioning what they could have done different.
GEB,
Well said.
I question to the degree the family went to, to get this person the mental health he needed. I think there in lays the responsibility, with the family. If they could not get him the professional help he needed, why is there an expectation for Wal-Mart employees to take up that responsibility?
. In the Tarasoff case was Tarasoff put on alert or was she left innocently thinking she was safe? That would require police notice to convey the alert. There was the patient doctor aspect muddling the water; however, the police may have been better than the therapist. Nothing was done to save Tarasoff?
The suicide is seen as the same as murder. The prevailing thought is the victim is a person and you’ve murdered a person. Is that principle held by all? Clearly , no.
Both cases require police notice? I’ll acquiesce to that until anyone presents a reasoned argument otherwise.
. What could they have done differently? Loved more, spoken it. If life is all there is then each life is a gemstone.
There is the matter of hyperbole. People say what they don’t mean everyday.
Why didn’t the family notify local PD or FBI that their child was suicidal so that his background check could have been denied? Seems like the family is more at fault that Walmart.
Good thing you’re not a lawyer.
Good thing for you that the price of gaslighting is less expensive under Trump than it was under Biden.
“Why didn’t the family notify local PD or FBI that their child was suicidal . . .”
Actually, they did. The family knew damn well that he was suicidal — because he had been hospitalized three times before killing himself.
Good question, Sam. But it appears that the CA Supreme Court focused not on Moore’s contacting police, but on his failure to notify the victim.
“In our view, however, once a therapist does in fact determine, or under applicable professional standards reasonably should have determined, that a patient poses a serious danger of violence to others, he bears a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the foreseeable victim of that danger.”
(see Secs. 3 and 7)
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-supreme-court/1830445.html
(from lin) (weather affecting my laptop. stay warm!)
L: Suppose the doctor/hospital had informed the intended victim. The intended victim then tells the deranged one (Podder): “Back off!” Podder then goes on a shooting spree.
Who do you think would have been held liable for that tragedy?
Enter plaintiffs’ attorneys: “Podder was a ticking bomb. The doctor/hospital knew he was explosive. By informing the intended victim, they lit his fuse.”
P.S. Not arguing with you. Venting my anger at the injustice of today’s liability “laws.”
Hello Sam: Coming back on board for a moment. Yes, agree, that specific danger is palpably pressing.
this is a troubling area of law and has always been,
(1) IMO probably the best answer is the potential negligence of medical personnel to not take steps toward involuntary commitment/confinement (or at a minimum, detention for observation). In the case re: Dr. Moore, he was held not liable because California provides immunity for governmental employees but he was held liable for failure of duty to warn. That decision has permeated and served as guidance for many states’ laws now that it is accepted as pretty SOP. (I/my firm defended medical persons and entities, so I am familiar with this–not that I am a know-it-al.)
(2) Even if, as you say, the police are sued, I think most jurisdictions provide immunity for police, either due to governmental or qualified immunity OR the lack of a “special relationship” imposing a duty to warn a potential victim.
(3) For me (I/my firm defended medical persons and entities, so I am familiar with this–not that I am a know-it-al.), I feel my blood pressure going up (just kidding) every time I see a family member trying to defend a suspect against violence or murder charges by saying “he didn’t take his medicine” or “he’s got some mental issues,” etc. i would like to see more liability attach to family members who conceal or fail to inform when there is an “identifiable victim” (the criterion often attaching to other “special relationship” situations). As is, it is used mostly to mitigate $ damage awards, but family members are mostly not liable.
Sam: My reply to to you (10:08 below) was intended to address “Dr. Moore” in your 9:13 comment. Sorry that it got posted here instead. My wifi is going in and out, so I think i goofed by posting it under your more recent post without realizing the time difference and content.
I figured that.
From your quote: “. . . he bears a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the foreseeable victim of that danger.”
Dr. Moore notified the police. If that’s not “reasonable care,” then what is? If anything, it’s the police who failed to protect the “victim of that danger.”
“If anything, it’s the police who failed to protect the “victim of that danger.””
Of course, the police are also absolved by established precedent that they are responsible to enforce laws by apprehending lawbreakers, not for protecting anyone. That is actually probably as it should be. The accountability should be on the suicidal person and his family, not others who are impaired by conflicting legal requirements and preyed upon by lawyers out for a quick buck.
And if the manager had informed all the other managers, Walmart would have been sued for sharing employee private and sensitive information. The liberal mind is mysterious in it’s workings.
Wonderful. I was reading the posts and enjoying the reasoned responses and discussions. Then it degenerated into name calling and insults. Come on people grow up.
“Come on people grow up.” Um… that’s like name calling. Right?
You still don’t recognize the distinction between criticizing a behavior vs. castigating the entire individual?
Did you ever? I remember a time in the 1990s when it was considered boorish and unadultlike to give negative feedback as a personal insult.
Then there was DJT. An entire generation has renounced the essentials of civilized conversation.
A great deal of national problem-solving capacity has been lost. Go back and look at all the social and legal reforms accomplished from 1960-2000. Automobile safety, environmental pollution, women’s equal rights, child sex abuse, financial fraud, the Italian mafias, drunk driving, airline safety, animal treatment, racial bigotry, space exploration. We made progress in all these areas. Now, we’re flailing and prone to wildly oscillating policies.
The reason: incivility, manipulative infowarfare, and shows of disrespect based on mere policy disagreement.
I remember a time in the 1990s when it was considered boorish and unadultlike to give negative feedback as a personal insult. Then there was DJT. An entire generation has renounced the essentials of civilized conversation.
How about remembering the 1980s as well as the 1990’s prior to Trump? I remember very, very well the boorish and unadult incivility and boorish manipulative infowarfare that was Democrats’ attacks on Reagan in the early 1980s as being an Alzheimer’s patient, unread, etc. I remember that sophomoric ad hominum Democrat propaganda carrying through to attack George Bush in the 1990s which you speak of as though such Democrat conduct in that period before Trump never happened.
Democrat conduct which redoubled to then be directed towards Trump the minute he announced he was going to run against Clinton for president.
You are here to claim none of that happened – that Trump’s responses to Democrats who who were immediately attacked him as supposedly a Nazi, a racist, an idiot, etc. is the cause of current behavior – he forced them to launch those attacks. but of Democrat behavior predating his run for office by 35 years.
That’s a long stretch for you to attempt. Care to stick around to debate your allegations? Or should that more accurately be demagoguery and defamation?
Mr. Cognate. In case you missed it 🤔… the Internet was designed, and made for, posting ridiculous, silly, idiotic, outrageous and at least 50%+ trolling and/or fictional comments, anonymously ✅️. Only the rare, and some say not so bright, person post comments that are reasonable, prudent and tied to reality using their own name and/or identity- like me and you 😺😺😺
“the Internet was designed, and made for, posting ridiculous, silly, idiotic, outrageous and at least 50%+ trolling and/or fictional comments, anonymously”
e.g., Usenet, and for the more recent on-line denizens, Reddit…
This case is yet another that exposes the central misunderstanding of the 2nd amendment. What was meant originally by members of the militia (police and military) being able to own guns migrated into individuals owning guns while not belonging to a sanctioned militia….
This is problematic in a functionally fascist, racist, uneducated and corrupt state such as the U.S. We see evidence of this everyday here on the blog in commentary by a collection of morons who are incapable of trying to engage on almost any topic without relying entirely on memes, rhetoric, personal insult and a quick pivot to implicit reference to their willingness to solve conflict through gunplay first.
Party on ya butt lickin hound dogs.
I see your point. You should never own a gun. You’re mentally unstable.
Your pedantic child level talking points ramble never cease to amaze me, an adult so delusional is impressive stuff – or just a troll who thinks they are critical to reducing intelligent exchanges to playground level.
Just like you?
This comment reflects a central misunderstanding of the Second Amendment
The right to effective self-defense is obvious, foundational. Dead people have no civil rights. Why bother to document it in the Constitution?
Because gun owners contribute to the security of society. Only citizens who have developed marksmanship skills, at home, in their spare time, can effectively repel invaders and suppress insurrectionists.
They don’t have legal authority to use violent force that way. Only badged, sworn law officers do. Self-defense rights only go as far as defense against criminals offending in your sphere. They do not allow you to define who are insurrectionists, and then hop into warfare. You’ll be convicted and imprisoned if you do.
+100
Do you mean insurrectionists like the insurrectionists in Minnesota who have been decided illegal by the city and told to disperse?
“This case is yet another that exposes the central misunderstanding of the 2nd amendment. What was meant originally by members of the militia (police and military) being able to own guns migrated into individuals owning guns while not belonging to a sanctioned militia….”
I’m not certain whether you are an imbecilic ignoramus with the self-delusion of competence, or an abysmally poorly trained AI bot. In any event, the “militia” to which the Second Amendment refers WAS armed individuals who would occasionally train together, and who could be expected to counter any government-inflicted tyranny. There was no requirement of centralized sanction, because the source for such license was also the source from which the primary risks to Liberty could be expected to ensue. That point was even conceded years ago by left-wing Constitutional legal academic Lawrence Tribe.