A year after an Army reservist, Robert Card, carried out a mass shooting in Lewiston, Maine, survivors and the families of the 18 victims have initiated legal action against the U.S. federal government. These individuals are represented by four law firms, which have filed negligence claims against the Department of Defense, the Army, and Keller Army Community Hospital. They argue that these entities failed to take appropriate action in response to warning signs and threats made by Card in the months preceding the tragic event.
The legal actions focus on holding military and federal authorities accountable, similar to a prior case involving a 2017 church shooting in Texas, where survivors successfully sued the federal government. The survivors in Maine are following a similar strategy, sending legal notices that initiate a six-month period for the government to investigate the claims. If no resolution occurs within that time, they can move forward with lawsuits in federal court.
https://www.cpmrevenuegate.com/vt6hstxc?key=785582df3563a5011d6a42a72f53041e
Card, who committed suicide following a two-day manhunt, had shown signs of serious mental health issues months before the shooting. An internal military report revealed that Card had been hospitalized for psychosis and homicidal ideations after a physical altercation with another reservist. Despite his deteriorating mental state and a known “hit list,” the Army prohibited him only from carrying weapons while on duty. Furthermore, Card’s mental health providers had strongly recommended that he remain engaged in treatment and that weapons be removed from his home, advice that went unheeded.
A separate state commission report echoed these concerns, highlighting how lapses by Card’s military unit, local law enforcement, and medical staff contributed to the failure to address the threat he posed. Medical staff at Keller Army Community Hospital were specifically criticized for failing to file a SAFE Act notice, which could have alerted authorities to Card’s potential danger.
In addition to these systemic failures, questions have been raised about the potential link between Card’s role as a hand grenade instructor and his mental health decline. Research revealed evidence of traumatic brain injury (TBI), though the military denies any service-related connection to his brain injury.
As the survivors and families continue to seek justice, they emphasize the tragedy of missed opportunities to prevent the shooting. Cynthia Young, who lost both her husband and son in the attack, has gained access to Card’s mental health records, as she seeks answers regarding the circumstances that led to the massacre.The ongoing legal action by the survivors and victims’ families reflects their determination to hold accountable those they believe were negligent in preventing Robert Card from carrying out the mass shooting. Their primary argument is that various military and civilian authorities had ample warning about Card’s mental health decline, violent tendencies, and explicit threats, but failed to intervene effectively.
A significant part of their case rests on the reports released in the months after the shooting, which paint a picture of systematic breakdowns across different institutions. The military, in particular, is under scrutiny for how Card’s Army Reserve unit handled the situation. After his psychiatric hospitalization, despite his clear symptoms of psychosis and documented threats, there was no comprehensive plan to monitor his mental health or restrict his access to firearms outside of military duty. The failure of Card’s unit to share all relevant information with law enforcement is also a critical point in the negligence claims.
https://www.cpmrevenuegate.com/vt6hstxc?key=785582df3563a5011d6a42a72f53041e
The state commission’s report further revealed that Card’s family had alerted a local sheriff’s department about his deteriorating mental health, but their concerns did not lead to the enforcement of Maine’s “yellow flag” law. This law allows authorities to confiscate firearms from individuals deemed a threat to themselves or others, but no action was taken in Card’s case. Law enforcement also missed opportunities to locate him after he was reported to be a danger, adding to the overall sense of preventable failure.
The legal notices filed by the victims’ families are not a class-action lawsuit; rather, they involve around 100 individual claims. The families hope these claims will bring about some form of accountability from the federal government and military institutions, which they accuse of failing in their duty to protect the public from a known threat.
The case draws parallels to the aftermath of the 2017 Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting, where the federal government was found partly liable for not preventing a former Air Force service member from acquiring weapons despite his violent history. In that case, survivors reached a settlement after a prolonged legal battle, and the Maine case may follow a similar path, potentially leading to significant legal precedents regarding government accountability in mass shootings involving military personnel.
The question of Card’s motive remains unresolved, although his family has suggested that his mental health issues were exacerbated by auditory hallucinations and paranoia. He had reportedly been hearing voices, particularly after being fitted for high-powered hearing aids. Whether this played a role in his actions, alongside his mental health decline and potential brain injury from military service, is still unclear.
For the families of the victims, the legal battle is about more than just financial compensation. It’s a quest for answers and justice—an attempt to ensure that such a tragedy is less likely to occur again by holding the relevant authorities accountable for their apparent inaction. The legal process could also shed further light on the broader systemic issues within the military and law enforcement when dealing with individuals who show signs of severe mental distress and violent tendencies.
Ultimately, this case could serve as a landmark in establishing how the federal government and military should respond to early warnings of potential violence among service members and veterans.
