Last night, a “breaking news” story came on the 6:00 PM news. Apparently, the families of two shooting victims from the Amy Bishop-UAH shooting are suing her and her husband. The lawyer was discussing the reasoning behind the suit. Apparently, they feel that Bishop and her husband should be responsible for the medical costs related to the wounds suffered by their loved ones.
“We think that there’s a pattern of conduct, not just the fact that he’s picking her up after the event but his conduct in allowing her to have access to the weapon.” – Gary Conchin, the lawyer representing Stephanie Monticciolo and Joseph Leahy.
He continued through the interview to say things related to her husband “allowing” Bishop access to weapons. It really bugged me since it seemed to imply that either due to her being mentally ill or her being the wife, she needed to be controlled by her husband.
The gun used in the shooting was purchased in 1989, years before the Bishop-Anderson family moved to Huntsville, and long before she was hired to work at UAH. It seems a bit ridiculous to think that 21 years ago, her husband should have had the foresight to know that his wife would go into work one day and shoot six of her colleagues. Of course, the lawyer seems to think that her husband purchasing this gun and then not keeping his adult wife from using it 21 years later constitutes some sort of negligent behavior.
I seriously doubt that if a mentally ill man walked into his place of work and shot people using a gun purchased by his wife 21 years prior, we would be hearing about a lawsuit being filed against the wife for not keeping her husband away from the gun. I certainly can guarantee you that no lawyer would expect a wife to control her husband’s behavior or allow him access to weaponry.