-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
I really can't take it anymore.
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
Yea, they were talking about this on the news this morning.
I don't understand how they think that the people that made it had anything to do with the death.
At the most, it was the person using it, not the company that made it...
But then, I know. If they weren't made in the frist place, she wouldn't be dead.
But if I shit gold....
I don't understand how they think that the people that made it had anything to do with the death.
At the most, it was the person using it, not the company that made it...
But then, I know. If they weren't made in the frist place, she wouldn't be dead.
But if I shit gold....
What a surprise! They city agrees to help the family sue the manufacturer. I'm sure that it's all due to civic mindedness, a sense of the need to help the less fortunate, etc., etc., etc. Of course, the ability to deflect blame for shooting a tear gas projectile directly into somebody's face (OK, maybe they just don't bother to pay attention to where they're aiming.) and the chance to pocket $2M helped a little.
Ken
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
KMaurer said:
Yeah, that part jumped out at me, too. Looks like Mumbles Menino sees the chance to deflect blame from the police department AND get back some of what they gave the family.
Why aren't they suing the guy who grabbed the gun even though he wasn't trained in it? Probably because he doesn't have $10 million to give them.
Not justifying any particular position here, nor have I read the linked story, but I did a fair amount of reading in LE forums after the shooting.
So I'll throw my opinion out there based on what I know:
- Mfr certified training came with the guns, they had a very STRONG inference that these were "NON-lethal", and the training probably stressed that too much!
- I do understand that the training was to shoot low, not at the head. But doing this in a mob scene where some were standing on the ground, some were up on poles, some on scaffolding, etc. is non-trivial. This is a Boston PD issue, it might have been the wrong tool for this event . . . or at least it was mis-used.
- How well the training sunk in to the officers who were trained to use the guns is questionable . . . at least after the fact.
- Even now, most reports state things like, the police thought they were like paint-ball where you only get bruised at most . . . it de-emphasizes the old adage our parents taught us that even with a BB gun "you can take an eye out"! It is like a paint-ball gun, but participants are required to wear a complete face shield in paint-ball to prevent what happened in Boston!
My conclusion is that there probably IS some culpability on the part of the mfr for selling, promoting and training with such a strong emphasis that these guns were NON-lethal! They could have put more emphasis on the fact that if you hit someone in the face with it, it COULD be lethal!
Are they to blame for what happened? In my estimation, they share the blame for mis-marketing the product. They'd be less culpable (IMNSHO) if they just sold the product, made NO claims about "non-lethal", and did NOT provide the training on use of the guns . . . but since they did all this, they are responsible for spreading mis-information which cost a life!
So I'll throw my opinion out there based on what I know:
- Mfr certified training came with the guns, they had a very STRONG inference that these were "NON-lethal", and the training probably stressed that too much!
- I do understand that the training was to shoot low, not at the head. But doing this in a mob scene where some were standing on the ground, some were up on poles, some on scaffolding, etc. is non-trivial. This is a Boston PD issue, it might have been the wrong tool for this event . . . or at least it was mis-used.
- How well the training sunk in to the officers who were trained to use the guns is questionable . . . at least after the fact.
- Even now, most reports state things like, the police thought they were like paint-ball where you only get bruised at most . . . it de-emphasizes the old adage our parents taught us that even with a BB gun "you can take an eye out"! It is like a paint-ball gun, but participants are required to wear a complete face shield in paint-ball to prevent what happened in Boston!
My conclusion is that there probably IS some culpability on the part of the mfr for selling, promoting and training with such a strong emphasis that these guns were NON-lethal! They could have put more emphasis on the fact that if you hit someone in the face with it, it COULD be lethal!
Are they to blame for what happened? In my estimation, they share the blame for mis-marketing the product. They'd be less culpable (IMNSHO) if they just sold the product, made NO claims about "non-lethal", and did NOT provide the training on use of the guns . . . but since they did all this, they are responsible for spreading mis-information which cost a life!
derek said:
I'm thinking along the lines Len is. I don't think the manufacture should be held totally accountable, but they should share in the liability, based on their training and misrepresentation. The city should be the primary liable party here, they used it, they should be paying out 75-80% of the liability, IMNSHO.
The pencil companies don't usually advocate poking people with their product, FN does advocate shooting their product at people.
It's the eyeball! No where in the manual does it say "hit the eyeballs". I'm damn sure the company told them no head shots. And there isn't anything that says "Non-Lethal", they have only claimed "Less-Lethal"
This whole lawsuit is....... I'll refrain from comment.
This whole lawsuit is....... I'll refrain from comment.
derek said:
Len said they said "Non-Lethal". That is an open invitation for lawsuit, as far as I'm concerned.
You've said "Less Lethal". BIG difference. "Less Lethal" should not be held liable. The term Less doesn't mean that they're not lethal.
And, either way, I'll agree that this lawsuit, including the city's portion of it, is a travesty. IF I were the manufacturer, you could bank on me doing a buy-back from the city, and prohibiting sales to that city's PD and possibly all PD's in the state. Didn't someone mention that the city aided or encouraged the lawsuit? And if the city is off the hook for liability, the ONLY way the manufacturer should be liable is IF the item in question malfunctioned during proper use.
The only verbiage I've seen from FN has always been "less-lethal". And I'm sure their lawyers made them put that in the specs.
ETA: What about when someone dies from a Taser? The MFR's don't get sued, the Police Dept does.
ETA: What about when someone dies from a Taser? The MFR's don't get sued, the Police Dept does.
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
http://www.fnhusa.com/contents/ll_303.htm
Now, I don't know when that last warning was added, so it might not have always been there. But this is what's on their website right now.
Ross
Now, I don't know when that last warning was added, so it might not have always been there. But this is what's on their website right now.
Ross
I THINK that when these were first marketed, the term "non-lethal" MAY have been in use.
IF they changed their terminology to "less lethal" afterwards, they are toast!
"Discovery" should bring out the literature, training materials, etc. to show what PDs were told/taught initially.
Obviously after an event such as this, they would never use the term "non lethal" again!
So time-line and marketing info are key to determining liability (partial on mfr) here.
IF they changed their terminology to "less lethal" afterwards, they are toast!
"Discovery" should bring out the literature, training materials, etc. to show what PDs were told/taught initially.
Obviously after an event such as this, they would never use the term "non lethal" again!
So time-line and marketing info are key to determining liability (partial on mfr) here.
I think even if they were quoted as "Non-Lethal" in the past, they instructed the weapon not to be fired at the head. That alone is enough. f*** it was an accident, shit happens. When the police show up in riot gear, it's time to leave.
I don't understand how you think the MFR should be responsible in any way. "no head shots" I know for a fact that quote has always been a part of their verbiage.
It comes down to playing stupid. "It said less-lethal, I pulled the trigger with the muzzle at 5 feet high. How was I supposed to know it could kill somebody?" If anybody should pay it should be the Boston Police Dept., they employed the tool improperly.
I don't understand how you think the MFR should be responsible in any way. "no head shots" I know for a fact that quote has always been a part of their verbiage.
It comes down to playing stupid. "It said less-lethal, I pulled the trigger with the muzzle at 5 feet high. How was I supposed to know it could kill somebody?" If anybody should pay it should be the Boston Police Dept., they employed the tool improperly.
Similar threads
