CHICAGO — Victims of the Highland Park shooting have filed multiple lawsuits naming the alleged shooter, Robert Crimo III, Smith & Wesson, two firearms dealers and Crimo’s father as the parties who bear responsibility for eruption of gun violence that killed seven and wounded dozens of others during the northern suburb’s Independence Day parade.
The lawsuits, announced Wednesday in Northbrook, are the latest in the ongoing debate in the U.S. courts over who bears responsibility for the death and injury caused by firearms in this country.
Antonio Romanucci of Romanucci & Blandin, LLC, one of eight firms involved in the suits, said attorneys are “focused directly on gun makers Smith & Wesson.”
“After every mass shooting, Smith & Wesson has a bump in sales,” Romanucci said. “A bump in sales brings a bump in profits. A bump in profits brings bonuses to that C suite. We say no more. We say it’s over. We all say we’re done.”
The lawsuits name Robert Crimo Jr., the alleged shooter’s father, for helping his son obtain the gun permit card that he needed to purchase the Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifle that authorities say the younger Crimo used when he opened fire from atop a building along the parade route, according to one of the complaints, which was filed in Lake County Circuit Court Tuesday.
Alla Lefkowitz, senior director of affirmative litigation for Everytown Law, referred to the federal gun industry immunity law as “the unspoken elephant in the room,” but said an exception could pave the way for holding Smith & Wesson accountable for damages.
“That exception is when a member of the gun industry knowingly violates a state or federal law applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms, and here that is exactly what is being alleged,” Lefkowitz said. “Smith & Wesson, in addition to the two guns shops named as defendants, did violate the law.”
She said the legal coalition believes Smith & Wesson violated Illinois consumer protection laws, while the gun store defendants violated Highland Park and Highwood’s respective assault weapon ban ordinances.
In addition to monetary damages from both gun shops and Smith & Wesson, Lefkowitz said the suits are asking for “injunctive relief remedies” to how Smith & Wesson markets its weapons.
“Specifically, we are asking for age gating on social media,” Lefkowitz said. “We are asking that military imagery not be used with regard to marketing of these assault rifles. Importantly, we’re also asking for Smith & Wesson to disclose the dangers of assault rifles when it’s marketing them.”
She said a jury would ultimately decide the extent of financial damages and other remedies.
Jon Strauss, whose father Steven Strauss was shot and killed in the massacre, said no words can truly “convey the trauma of having a loved one stolen from you.”
“We stand here today because of a growing cancer in the fabric of American life that threatens us all, where desperate, lost souls can easily outfit themselves with military-grade weapons and impulsively wreak havoc on their communities in a matter of seconds, turning a joyful celebration into carnage,” Strauss said.
Romanucci said the suits are geared toward Smith & Wesson and the distributors, and not law enforcement agencies who approved Crimo’s application for a FOID card, but said the team of lawyers is “going to learn a lot” in the discovery process.
“(Smith & Wesson) was the entity involved and we know who the person was, so right now we’re focused on them,” Romanucci said.
Christopher Boehning of New York-based Paul, Weiss Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP said that “every case has to stand on its own,” but that a historic lawsuit brought against Remington after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting shows a model for holding gun manufacturers responsible for mass shootings.
“The bravery of the Sandy Hook families and the results of the Soto case show that we have the right legal theories here to bring to bare on behalf of the families and those affected, and we have the right legal team and resources to go toe-to-toe with the gun industry and seek justice,” Boehning said.
Survivor Lauren Bennett described fleeing the shooting scene on July 4 with her children, husband, parents and in-laws after being shot twice in her hip and back.
“Imagine a hot, metal dart-like projectile tearing through your body at supersonic speed, faster than the speed of sound,” Bennett said.
She said doctors who treated her were “shocked” and “amazed” that she survived her wounds.
“We survived a battle zone that day and will carry the most horrendous images with us for the rest of our lives,” Bennett said. “As we’ve been healing in these following weeks, we’ve come to terms with the reality that perpetual safety in the most shielded of places is nonexistent.”
Romanucci said that a dozen lawyers on stage for the press conference were “only a fraction of the team that is going to be fighting for these people,” but did not give a timeline for the case to move through the courts.
“We feel very well fortified in being able to respond to anything and be offensive in terms of being able to move this litigation as quickly and as efficiently as the court will allow,” he said.
Attorneys also read statements from Lorena Rebollar Sedano, Mirna Rodriguez, Michael Zeifert, Amelia Tenorio, Silvia Vergara and Liz Turnipseed, who suffered gunshot wounds, and Leah Sundheim, whose mother Jacki was killed.
The lawsuit also alleges that Crimo’s father knew his son was a “clear and present danger” when he sponsored him.
George Gomez, a Crimo family attorney, said Wednesday that he had not read the lawsuit. But Gomez reiterated what he has said in the past, that his client, Crimo’s father, followed the law when he sponsored his son’s permit application and did not thing wrong.
Further, Gomez said that the older Crimo had no knowledge of his son’s alleged plans for gun violence.
The allegations in the filings also clarify how Crimo obtained the weapon, saying he purchased it from an out-of-state online seller and picked it up at a Lake County gun shop.
According to the lawsuit, Crimo is described as a “21-year-old obsessed with violence” and also names firearms dealers Bud’s Gun Shop in Lexington, Ky. and Red Dot Arms, Inc. in Lake County as defendants.
Crimo ordered the rifle he used from Bud’s and picked it up at Red Dot, which facilitated the legal transfer, the lawsuit said. Both businesses knew Crimo had an address in Highland Park, the lawsuit said, and that he was a “resident of a municipality that prohibited the possession of such weapons.”
“Nevertheless, they proceeded with the sale and transfer, enabling the Shooter to carry out his deadly mission,” the lawsuit reads.
A woman who answered the phone at Red Dot Arms said, “I’m not interested in giving you any comment.” Attempts to reach Bud’s Gun Shop and Smith & Wesson were not immediately successful.
“For years, Smith & Wesson, Bud’s Gun Shop, Red Dot Arms, and other entities in the gun industry have, through their misconduct and illegal practices, been able to profit off the actions of disturbed and hate-filled young men like the Shooter,” the lawsuit reads. “They, like the Shooter’s Father, willfully ignored the public’s right to be safe from violence by placing a weapon of war into the Shooter’s hands. All of these actors must be held accountable for the massacre at Highland Park’s Fourth of July Parade.”
Edelson PC attorney Ari Scharg said Smith & Wesson’s marketing campaigns “destroy” the line between fantasy and reality, and the company rakes in increased profits as a result of gun sales prompted after mass shootings take place.
“We believe that we will demonstrate to a jury that Smith & Wesson is out there training mass shooters as we speak in households all over the country,” Scharg said.
“This coalition is HP strong,” Scharg added, “and we will never run out of energy for this fight.”
———
