Sandy Hook families can sue Remington - Page 3

Sandy Hook families can sue Remington

This is a discussion on Sandy Hook families can sue Remington within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Anybody can sue anybody for just about anything. Heck, we could even initiate a class action suit against the Democrats for causing us undue duress ...

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 75
Like Tree289Likes

Thread: Sandy Hook families can sue Remington

  1. #31
    Senior Member Array Frodebro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    1,095
    Anybody can sue anybody for just about anything. Heck, we could even initiate a class action suit against the Democrats for causing us undue duress and fear for our personal safety if we chose to do so. Suing somebody doesn't necessarily mean you'll get a favorable outcome, though-especially if the person(s) or company you're suing has better lawyers (and more of them) than you can afford yourself.
    airslot, Rockymonster and Sister like this.

  2. #32
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,709
    This lawsuit is perhaps the most laughable of them all, if they are suggesting Remington/Bushmaster advertised that the guns purpose is to commit murder.
    airslot and Sister like this.
    a poor plan that is well executed will produce better results that a good plan that is poorly executed.

    This is America. I have the right to go places. You have the right to stay home. You have the right to be upset about me going places. I have the right to not care.

  3. #33
    Senior Member Array redmc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    The Last Green Valley Ct.
    Posts
    1,187
    Quote Originally Posted by CG11 View Post
    So how do I determine who to sue for the extra pounds around my middle??? Oh, I know, I'll do it the liberal way = I'll sue everybody!!!
    I think tomorrow I will get a coffee at Dunkin Donuts so I can burn myself and sue them

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #34
    Distinguished Member Array 19Kvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,259
    Reminington needs to counter sue for legal costs- unless their product failed (nevermind that their customer is dead and isn't the one suing), the "plaintiff" has no case.
    airslot, msgt/ret and Sister like this.

  6. #35
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    7,641
    Quote Originally Posted by 19Kvet View Post
    Reminington needs to counter sue for legal costs- unless their product failed (nevermind that their customer is dead and isn't the one suing), the "plaintiff" has no case.
    Don't be too sure. The state supreme court has said the suit can go forward. That means a verdict for the plaintiffs is possible. That means there will be a civil trial, no doubt with a jury. Since the suit can no longer be thrown out on legal grounds, it will wind up in the hands of 12 citizens of CT. If the plaintiff's attorney creates enough sympathy, they can rule any way they want.

    However, it does seem unlikely. CT requires an unanimous jury vote even in a civil trial. Some states only require a majority in civil cases.
    airslot likes this.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  7. #36
    VIP Member
    Array Rob99VMI04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    5,375
    Isn't the suit based on that Remington marketed this gun to civilians as a military rifle? Remington should just stand up and ask, what military uses a semi-automatic AR-15?
    BamaT, msgt/ret, airslot and 1 others like this.

  8. #37
    Senior Member Array Bubblehead751's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    NEPA
    Posts
    972
    Quote Originally Posted by niks View Post
    Can't forsee this being a successful suit but the world is upside down now and nothing is impossible.

    https://americanmilitarynews.com/201...e--I11hwI6rpIo
    Already been successful for the lawyers. The justice system is a three ring circus, run by lawyers in such a way that lawyers make the most money possible. This is to their benefit.
    BamaT, msgt/ret and matthew03 like this.
    Montani Semper Liberi

    Mountaineers are Always Free!

  9. #38
    Distinguished Member Array BamaT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,229
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    The CT Supreme Court is allowing the plaintiffs to sue on "the single, limited theory that the defendants violated CT Unfair Trades Practices Act by 'marketing the XM15- E2S to civilians for criminal purposes,' and that those wrongful marketing tactics caused or contributed to the Sandy Hook massacre."

    So the suit is no longer about what Remington manufactured, but how they marketed it. It claims that they marketed the rifle to people for criminal use. I think this is going to be a tough sell, since the gun was not even bought by the Sandy Hook perpetrator, but his mother, who was also killed by the perpetrator. There is no indication that the mother had a criminal intent.
    Talk about a stretch....
    NRA Life Member

  10. #39
    Distinguished Member Array BamaT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubblehead751 View Post
    Already been successful for the lawyers. The justice system is a three ring circus, run by lawyers in such a way that lawyers make the most money possible. This is to their benefit.
    This is such an unfortunate truth. Most attempts at tort reform are beat back by....lawyers.
    NRA Life Member

  11. #40
    Member Array SunTsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Space Coast
    Posts
    283
    Lets assume the marketing does make them responsible for the criminal use of the buyer...
    The buyer never misused the product, the buyer was killed with a different firearm, then it was stolen and misused. Case should be thrown out as the criminal misuse was not from the buyer who they marketed to, but a third party.
    airslot and Rockymonster like this.

  12. #41
    VIP Member
    Array PhaedrusIV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    6,662
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    Except all those commercials have a subtext: "Professional Driver, closed course, do not attempt." Lawyers wrote that, not marketers.

    I can see gun manufacturers putting warnings on all their materials, "Do not use for criminal purposes."
    You're almost there, @jmf552 .

    This problem can easily be solved if every firearms manufacturer installs a warning label, as is currently done on packs of cigarettes.

    WARNING ! This device must not be used for criminal purposes.

    This would stop mass murder (or ordinary murder) dead in its tracks.
    - testing was halted after a brief kinetic episode -

  13. #42
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    7,641
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob99VMI04 View Post
    Isn't the suit based on that Remington marketed this gun to civilians as a military rifle? Remington should just stand up and ask, what military uses a semi-automatic AR-15?
    This is a stretch, I admit, but the same Bushmaster model was known to be used by ISIS in Iraq. That was a "military" in the sense our military fought them and is still fighting them. How they got the guns, I have not read. My guess is that will be brought up in this trial.
    matthew03 likes this.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  14. #43
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    7,641
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaedrusIV View Post
    You're almost there, @jmf552 .

    This problem can easily be solved if every firearms manufacturer installs a warning label, as is currently done on packs of cigarettes.

    WARNING ! This device must not be used for criminal purposes.

    This would stop mass murder (or ordinary murder) dead in its tracks.
    If they did that, the purpose would be to stop lawyers dead in their tracks!
    airslot and PhaedrusIV like this.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  15. #44
    VIP Member Array Hoganbeg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    4,081
    Quote Originally Posted by Yogi223 View Post
    Oh well...another story where the 2A takes a hit. A small cut. It's just one small cut. She has only taken a few hundred thousand of these small cuts. I mean for real...who dies a death of a thousand cuts?
    Well, it looks like this one did, and this is what they are doing to the 2A.

    https://www.foxnews.com/world/fox-ki...ch-farm-report
    airslot and Yogi223 like this.
    ...You will understand everything immediately, when you yourself "hands behind the back" toddle into our Archipelago. ---Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  16. #45
    Senior Member Array Bigpoppa48's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern NC
    Posts
    742
    Dang, I did not even know Remington owned Bushmaster. You learn something new every day.
    matthew03 likes this.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •