On a warm day in May in Palm Beach County, Fla., Nathaniel Brazill had a plan. The 13-year-old student was serving a multi-day suspension from Lake Worth Middle School. Such being the case, an angry, bored and un-chaperoned Brazill found time to steal a handgun from a neighbor.
Brazill, realizing guns were not permitted on campus, concealed the weapon as he sauntered into the classroom. When Brazill's teacher, Barry Grunow, tried to block him, Brazill killed him.
Nathaniel Brazill is currently on the third year of a 28-year sentence.
But the story doesn't end there. In the civil trial, the widow of the slain teacher, Pam Grunow, was angry — not with the neighbor, the school or even the Brazill family, as you might think. Mrs. Grunow's anger was directed at Valor Corp., the distributor of the gun used to kill her husband.
When the verdict was returned, no one was happy. The six-member jury rewarded Mrs. Grunow $24 million but found the neighbor 50 percent responsible, the school board 45 percent responsible and Valor Corp. only 5 percent ($1.2 million) responsible.
The jury found that the neighbor, who legally purchased and stored the gun, failed to place a child safety lock on it (an item not required by law) and was therefore liable. The school board was responsible for "allowing" Brazill on school grounds. Valor Corp. was found liable for selling a "defective product."
In the jury's mind, the gun was not functional because it did not come with a safety lock and it "could be associated with a toy because of its small size."
Despite its absurdity, the case made national news since this is the first time a gun distributor has been found liable in a death. The fact is the gun industry should have seen this coming.
Civil lawsuits are about monetary rewards and as such, target the deepest pockets. As time has progressed, America's judicial system has lost sight of true liability and has instead settled on the theory that someone must pay.
But this theory is as dangerous as it is unfair. When a company peddles a legal product and breaks no law in doing it, it is acting in good faith under the rules society grants it. These rules are sacred to both them and us because they are the guidelines under which we all function.
The average citizen would not allow the police to randomly decide when their actions were illegal and therefore subject to punishment. Laws should be spelled out clearly beforehand, as a way to safeguard our rights.
Yet, we do not afford these same safeguards to corporations.
If the practices of Valor Corp. are indeed causing harm, then the law should be changed so that no company engages in them. If child safety locks are so critical, then a law must be passed to require their sale. But once Grunow's lawyers get their money, nothing will be done to make the "streets safer from these guns," because that's not the goal of the lawyers.
If any change is made in the gun industry, it won't be by law and it won't be voluntary either. If company policy is changed, it will be mandated via civil court extortion.
Despite the fact that regulating corporations is obscenely outside the power of America's courts, there has been little cry from an Enron-wary American public.
After all, it's not our kid, it's not our gun and it's not our rights — at least not yet.
Joshua Billar is a chemical engineering graduate. Reach him at joshua.billar@asu.edu.
