In this scenario, there may be application of both criminal law act, and torts law. In other words, criminal law act would be to judge and punish the defendant for the committed crime. On the other hand, tort law would assess the situation and point out the cause of the criminal act, and, therefore, pass judgment.

According to tort law, the verdict passed should have charges of duty of care, breach of duty, and causing injury to plaintiffs. In this case, Lee is the defendant while Randy and victims of the gun shots are the plaintiffs. To begin with, Lee has a number of charges such use of a dangerous weapon without the consent of Randy, who is the seller, causing physical injury to a woman and a young boy, and causing emotional distress to the husband of the woman shot. Having been in a huge mart, it is obvious that there is sufficient evidence from witnesses, and perhaps a recorded tape of the scene. For some reasons, Randy may be charged of breach of duty for endangering the lives of the injured plaintiffs for handing Lee the gun without following a procedural questioning. However, Randy can claim to have insufficient skills on such procedures, and, therefore, passing the charge to buy mart (Elliott & Quinn, 2012).

Lee might claim to have been subjected to false imprisonment for two hours. Moreover, this charge may be passed to the police department, who delayed coming for the rescue of the victims of Lee’s criminal act. Additionally, Randy can defend himself and the security guard by stating the section of tort law that permits a shopkeeper to detain the customer if there is a reasonable risk of committing a criminal act to other customers and the public. Lee might also claim to have been assaulted by the security guards, and, therefore, charge them for battery of a heat of passion.

Nevertheless, this would be justified by their duty of protecting the employees and the customer at any cost. Without a lawful excuse, the defendant should be responsible for catering the medical expenses of the injured plaintiffs. He should also be banned from purchasing dangerous weapons like a gun as he is a danger to the public. The plaintiffs should also receive a monetary compensation for the emotional distress and physical torture. Finally, buy mart should provide sufficient training and protection to their employees in order to avoid such incidences in future.