[lambtron]

I hope she wins:

CNN



The widow of an Internal Revenue Service employee killed when a disgruntled taxpayer flew his plane into a seven-story building in Austin, Texas, last week is suing the pilot's wife, according to court documents.

Valerie Hunter, the wife of Vernon Hunter, is accusing Sheryl Stack, wife of Andrew Joseph "Joe" Stack III, of negligence, alleging she she knew or should have known that her husband was a threat to others and, thus, could have prevented the attack, according to the lawsuit filed Monday in Travis County District Court.

"Stack was threatened enough by Joseph Stack that she took her daughter and stayed at a hotel the night before the plane crash. [She] owed a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid a foreseeable risk of injury to others including [Vernon Hunter]," the suit says.

The lawsuit also seeks to bar the release of Vernon Hunter's autopsy report, saying that, if made public, it would cause Hunter's family to suffer "severe and irreparable emotional distress."

Hunter was killed February 18 when, authorities say, Stack flew his Piper Cherokee PA-28 into a northwest Austin building that housed nearly 200 IRS employees.

Authorities say Stack set fire to his $230,000 home in Austin before embarking on his fatal flight.

Police have said Sheryl Stack spent the previous night in an Austin-area hotel but did not say why. Police said they had received no calls of domestic violence from the house. The only calls to police were made a couple of years ago and concerned barking dogs, officials said said.

A 3,000-word message on a Web site registered to Stack railed against the government, particularly the IRS.

"I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different," the online message said. "I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let's try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well."

Sheryl Stack issued a statement after the attack expressing "sincere sympathy to the victims and their families."

[JayKay335i]

Bitch is negligible. Could have saved lives.

[doc1911]

I'm not so sure. Unless the wife had overewhelming evidence that her husband was going to do this specific act at that specific time I highly doubt the police of FBI would have taken her too seriously. In most cases LE would have to open a case and do some investigation first. In this day and age LE is not going to detain a person or close down all the IRS offices in an area with out very specific, credable information.

Look at it like this. If he told his wife to go stay in a hotel without a lot of other detail what would she have said?

wife " My husband hate the IRS and told me to saty in a hotel."
LE "Okay, why?"
W " He might do something."
LE "Like what?"
W: " Not sure but he ownes a plane and has a website."
LE: "Ma'am there are probably 100K people in this country that hate the IRS, have posted soemthing about it on the internet and might even have a plane. We will look into it."

That being said, if the wife knew exactly when, where and what her husband was planning she is just as guilty.

I think it is interesting that some people think this is an act of terrorism and other look at it as a act of revolution against a corrupt government.

[radix]

I see why Mrs. Hunter is frustrated, but this lawsuit is just stupid.

[radix]

Originally Posted by JayKay335i

Bitch is negligible. Could have saved lives.

What makes you say that?

[335iheLLraiseR]

off/on topic:

this guy i think did it better.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6232815.shtml

[lambtron]

Originally Posted by 335iheLLraiseR

off/on topic:

this guy i think did it better.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6232815.shtml

Saw that on the news the other day, that is 100% win.

[JayKay335i]

Originally Posted by radix

What makes you say that?

Suing is stupid. But she obviously knew he was going to do something ape shit crazy and obviously thought he was dangerous enough that she had to leave the house for her own safety. She could have possibly prevented it if she notified authorities of the psychotic violent person she was living with and his possibility of going on a rampage.

[radix]

Originally Posted by JayKay335i

Suing is stupid. But she obviously knew he was going to do something ape shit crazy and obviously thought he was dangerous enough that she had to leave the house for her own safety. She could have possibly prevented it if she notified authorities of the psychotic violent person she was living with and his possibility of going on a rampage.

The article didn't say why she left the house. He probably was angry, and she probably left because of his anger. Wives leave their husbands to go stay at their friends or mothers all the time, it's practically cliche. I guess my point is that there is nothing in the article to suggest that she had any knowledge that he would do something of this magnitude, and more importantly I fail to see what the police would have done to stop him even if she told them he was crazy (he probably had no diagnosed psychiatric condition, but who knows, maybe he did). Assuming she wasn't aware of his plans (and there is nothing to suggest she was in the article), this is how that conversation might have went:

[ring]
police: <blank> police department, may I help you?
wife: Hello, officer?
police: Yes?
wife: I think my husband might do something crazy. He's really upset.
police: What makes you say this?
wife: He's really angry at the IRS.
police: Is he around now? Are you safe?
wife: We left for a hotel.
police: Did he hit you or your child?
wife: No.
police: Did he threaten you?
wife: No.
police: Good, well what do you think he might do?
wife: I don't know, but he's not in his right mind, he just keeps saying he'll get them back.
police: Did he say anything specific?
wife: No, he just ranted about getting even with the IRS. He slammed doors, he even threw a glass against the wall and shattered it.
police: Well I'm sorry ma'am but that's not a crime, and we can't really do anything without any sort of specifics. Are you sure he wasn't just venting?
wife: Well, maybe... but again, he sound seriously upset... he was banging doors, and threw a glass, and yelled that he'd "get those motherfuckers" if it was the last thing he did.
police: Get who?
wife: The IRS.
police: I say that every year on April 14th.
[etc.]

[montreal red]

Originally Posted by radix

The article didn't say why she left the house. He probably was angry, and she probably left because of his anger. Wives leave their husbands to go stay at their friends or mothers all the time, it's practically cliche. I guess my point is that there is nothing in the article to suggest that she had any knowledge that he would do something of this magnitude, and more importantly I fail to see what the police would have done to stop him even if she told them he was crazy (he probably had no diagnosed psychiatric condition, but who knows, maybe he did). Assuming she wasn't aware of his plans (and there is nothing to suggest she was in the article), this is how that conversation might have went:

+1
i doubt she was aware of exactly what he was going to do. and without that info, the police would have done nothing.

[radix]

Originally Posted by doc1911

I'm not so sure. Unless the wife had overewhelming evidence that her husband was going to do this specific act at that specific time I highly doubt the police of FBI would have taken her too seriously. In most cases LE would have to open a case and do some investigation first. In this day and age LE is not going to detain a person or close down all the IRS offices in an area with out very specific, credable information.

Look at it like this. If he told his wife to go stay in a hotel without a lot of other detail what would she have said?

wife " My husband hate the IRS and told me to saty in a hotel."
LE "Okay, why?"
W " He might do something."
LE "Like what?"
W: " Not sure but he ownes a plane and has a website."
LE: "Ma'am there are probably 100K people in this country that hate the IRS, have posted soemthing about it on the internet and might even have a plane. We will look into it."

That being said, if the wife knew exactly when, where and what her husband was planning she is just as guilty.

I think it is interesting that some people think this is an act of terrorism and other look at it as a act of revolution against a corrupt government.

Damn. I just realized my previous post is a complete ripoff of yours. It wasn't intentional, sorry doc.

[Zephyr15]

Originally Posted by lambtron

I hope she wins

I hope her case gets dismissed at the earliest possible point.

Originally Posted by JayKay335i

Bitch is negligible. Could have saved lives.

Negligible?

Originally Posted by radix

I see why Mrs. Hunter is frustrated, but this lawsuit is just stupid.

Originally Posted by JayKay335i

Suing is stupid. But she obviously knew he was going to do something ape shit crazy and obviously thought he was dangerous enough that she had to leave the house for her own safety. She could have possibly prevented it if she notified authorities of the psychotic violent person she was living with and his possibility of going on a rampage.

You know all of this how? According to all reports that I've seen those closest to this guy had no idea he felt this way, and there's no evidence that he displayed "psychotic," "violent" or "ape shit crazy" tendencies at any time prior to deliberately crashing his plane.

This wife tragically lost her husband, but suing the perpetrator's innocent wife isn't the right way to respond, legally or ethically.

[335e92tx]

Originally Posted by JayKay335i

Bitch is negligent. Could have saved lives.

fixed

[TMNT]

Unless she can PROVE the wife knew about the attack, her claim won't hold up in court.

If there is substantial evidence, the FBI will find it.

[Schumacher]

I live 10 miles away. It looks absolutely gutted, couldn't believe only one person died.

[E90SLAM]

Originally Posted by radix

Damn. I just realized my previous post is a complete ripoff of yours. It wasn't intentional, sorry doc.

I like urs better...

[E90SLAM]

There's nothing obvious unless they can prove Stack's wife knows and hold information about the specific attack. Otherwise, they can only prove she's taking the children and stay at hotel to avoid further confrontation with her husband and possible domestic violence.

[335e92tx]

We have a penchant in this country for taking it to court for the most asinine reasons...

[samwoo2go]

Remember guys this is a civil law suit, which means the jury doesn't have to be "beyond reasonable doubt" to find the defendant guilty. In whatever case, I really don't think she's guna get much out of her, I mean the guy burned down their house, their most valuable asset.

[Synergy 69]

Originally Posted by 335iheLLraiseR

off/on topic:

this guy i think did it better.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6232815.shtml

can't they still foreclose on the land?

[lambtron]

Originally Posted by Synergy 69

can't they still foreclose on the land?

I'm pretty sure they can, but they won't be able to make as much money as they would have hoped because now there is a pile of rubble there, haha.

[Couch]

Let's stop all the fucking lawsuits already.

I don't think there was one single person that knew Joe Stack would do what he did.