Family of Victim, Survivors of FedEx Indianapolis Mass Shooting Files Lawsuit Against Gun Magazine Manufacturer, Distributors


The family of a victim and several survivors of a mass shooting at a FedEx facility in Indianapolis have filed a lawsuit against companies involved in manufacturing, marketing and selling the high-capacity magazine used by the shooter which killed 8 people and injured several others in 2021. .

The federal lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, targets a firearms distributor and magazine manufacturers, and alleges that the companies recklessly marketed and sold their products to young men impulsive people at risk of being victims of violence.

The shooter in the April 15, 2021 attack, 19-year-old Brandon Hole, was previously employed at the establishment and opened fire on his former colleagues before killing himself. About a year before the attack, Hole had visited white supremacist websites, CNN previously reported. His mother contacted police in March 2020 because she was concerned about his behavior and threatening statements he made after purchasing a gun, according to police.

The suit was filed Thursday on behalf of the estate of Jaswinder Singh, who was killed in the shooting, Harpreet Singh, who was injured, and his wife Dilpreet Kaur, and Lakhwinder Kaur, who was also injured in the attack. They are each seeking at least $75,000 from the lawsuit and requesting a jury trial, according to the complaint.

The suit targets American Tactical Inc., a U.S. importer, manufacturer and seller of firearms, and the company’s president and director of marketing and purchasing. Schmeisser GmbH, a German firearms manufacturer; and 365 Plus doo, a Slovenian company that designs, produces and distributes firearm accessories and other tactical equipment, are also named as defendants.

The three companies were involved in manufacturing, marketing and selling high-capacity 60-round magazines that “were repeatedly used to massacre and terrorize Americans in horrific mass shootings well before April 2021,” it says. the trial.

The lawsuit claims these companies made these magazines readily available to Hole and targeted their marketing campaign at “a consumer base filled with impulsive young men who feel the need to harm others in order to prove their strength and who have militaristic illusions of fighting in a war.” or a video game.

“This case is about what happens when companies recklessly design, market, sell and distribute these accessories to the general public – indiscriminately – and without following reasonable safeguards,” the lawsuit states.

American Tactical declined to comment on the lawsuit to CNN. Lawyers for the other defendants did not immediately respond to requests.

Schmeisser GmbH manufactured the magazine used in the mass shooting and distributed it in the United States through American Tactical and 365 Plus, the lawsuit claims.

“The large capacity of the magazine encouraged the shooter to commit the attack, knowing that he had the ability to fire 60 rounds continuously without needing to stop to reload,” the lawsuit states.

The complaint says American Tactical promoted marketing videos showing men dressed in tactical vests similar to those Hole wore during the 2021 attack as they fired “a constant stream of bullets at unseen targets in various offensive tactical operations.

The lawsuit alleges that gun manufacturers released an “excessively dangerous product without sufficient safeguards to prevent its foreseeable illegal use.”

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the gun control advocacy organization that employs two of the many attorneys representing the plaintiffs, wrote in a statement to CNN that the nonprofit is “trying to seek justice for these survivors and their families, and to hold American Tactical, Inc.” …accountable for their irresponsible marketing and business practices.

“If you decide to sell such highly lethal products to the general public anyway, you need to be very careful about who you sell them to. As we allege in our complaint, the defendants here instead took a hard line and specifically marketed their highly lethal products to a class of dangerous individuals,” said Philip Bangle, the Brady Center’s senior legal counsel.


Back to top button