The last thing Sandra Torres spoke to her 10-year-old daughter about was her anxious anticipation of whether she would be selected for the all-star softball team.
Eliahna Torres was one of 19 kids and two instructors murdered at their elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, hours later.
On Monday, Sandra Torres filed a federal lawsuit against police, the school district, and the manufacturer of the shooter’s rifle because she has no closure and few answers about why law enforcement waited 77 minutes on May 24 in the school corridor before engaging the shooter.
She stated, “My baby never made it out of school.” “Neither openness nor accountability exists. There is no action taken.
By “barricading” the victims inside two classrooms with the gunman for more than an hour, the lawsuit alleges that the city, the school district, and numerous police departments violated the victim’s constitutional rights.
Police, the city, and the school system did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The legal division of the organization Everytown for Gun Safety is assisting Torres.
The AR-style semiautomatic rifle maker is also mentioned in her lawsuit, which details the terrible mass massacre in which Salvador Ramos fired over 100 rounds from the weapon.
The legal dispute over firearms across the country has a new and growing front with this claim.
The families of the victims of the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, were able to reach a $73 million settlement with Remington, the manufacturer of the gun used in that shooting ten years earlier, even though gun manufacturers are typically immune from lawsuits based on crimes committed with their products under federal law.
After the victims successfully claimed that suing for marketing-related damages under state law constituted an exception to the federal immunity rule, a settlement was reached.
According to Eric Tirschwell, executive director at Everytown Law, the new Uvalde lawsuit claims that Daniel Defense’s marketing strategies negligently used militaristic imagery, product placement in combat video games, and social media to target “vulnerable and violent young men,” in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
Tirschwell cited the conclusions of a report by an investigating committee from the Texas House of Representatives, saying, “It wasn’t by coincidence that he went from never firing a gun to wielding a Daniel Defense AR-15.”
“We want to show that Daniel Defense marketing significantly influenced Ramos’ decisions.”