>>The jury didn't find any liability for Nathanial Brazill, who pulled the trigger.<<
Holy F-ing crap! The person who shoots has no liability??

Speaking as a supporter of gun control.... this is just plain stupid.

If the shooter had been, say 6 years old, then yes, I'd say "fair enough". Penalise the gunmaker 5% for not kiddie-proofing a dangerous weapon with a safety (not that it would be an absolute guarantee a 3-year-old couldn't kill someone with it, but as long as it reduces the odds as much as is practicable). Penalise the idiots who let a 6-year old get a gun 95%. And the kiddie not at all.

But this guy wasn't 6. He was 16. The lack of a safety - although I think criminally negligent - was immaterial in this case. 95% blame to the shooter, 5% to the people who allowed him access.

It beggars the imagination to figure out how this travesty of justice was enacted. I'm Australian, and it's bad manners for me to bad-mouth the USA, for which I apologise: but can't you USAians *do something* about this idiocy?

Alan,

I knew there was something amiss when I saw the spelling of penalise - but I think your manners are just fine.

We are trying to do something about this idiocy - I'm just worried about how successful we will be. But the decision does boggle the mind.

You got it Neal. This is the beginning of what may be a really strange, slippery slope.

So now cattle ranchers are liable for people that scarf down 10 Big Macs a week? (I know, Big Macs aren't real meat, but anyway...)

Am I liable for buying a gun that this company produced, hence helping keep it in business.

It's time for some of these companies to grow some cahones.

Apparently, the Judge instructed the jury that they COULD NOT find the shooter liable, because the shooting was not an accident (i.e. he had been convicted of murder, not manslaughter).

Huh?! Someone needs to take a flamethrower to our legal code if that's really the way this is supposed to work.

Please, please, please, let this get overturned on appeal or something.