Defensive Carry banner

21 - 40 of 75 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,306 Posts
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."
Well, I've never caught the Remington tv spot that pushes customers to go out and shoot their neighbors either... :yup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,297 Posts
The Supreme Court will most likely end with, and strike down this ruling. It's stupid that this would even reach that far, but the crazies keep getting elected. People that my parents and grandparents would have just smiled at and ignored. The smiling being the general politeness of the times.

Most of the "village idiots" as they would have been called, would never have been elected to anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,306 Posts
Old Jimmy Beam is walking a narrow line in my case... Nothing will be my fault.
You win the interwebs today, Sir. :danceban:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,235 Posts
The families filed a lawsuit against Remington in 2015, alleging that the company manufactured and marketed a military weapon that ended up in the hands of a civilian.
Show me ONE military, anywhere in the world, that has equipped its troops with the Bushmaster XM15- E2S. Until you can do that, there's nothing to talk about.

Is the Bushmaster xm15 e2s mil spec?

No, not at all. Here's a quick down and dirty of how mil-spec the Bushmaster XM15-e2s is not. First, the buffer tube is a commercial tube, not a mil-spec tube. ... The Bushmaster XM15-e2s's bolt carrier group is a semi-auto BCG.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,869 Posts
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!!!
There have been several people that sued fast food restaurants for "making them fat". One guy in Brazil even won!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,858 Posts
A sure cure to wasteful, time consuming law suits is for the loser to have to pay the legal costs of the winner...like that's going to ever happen.:ziplip:
The winners need to file a wasteful, time-consuming lawsuit to force the losers to pay. That will show them!:rolleyes: I agree that these baseless suits should cost the plaintiff dearly when lost/tossed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,095 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,817 Posts
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sister and airslot

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,187 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,996 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
983 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,249 Posts
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....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
294 Posts
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.
 
21 - 40 of 75 Posts
Top