Remington and Sandy Hook

Laura

NES Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
10,273
Likes
39,529
Location
Peabody, MA
Feedback: 8 / 0 / 0

I'm still trying to figure this one out. So, if your child dies in a hit and run, does this mean that parents can sue Toyota or Ford, etc. for wrongful death? I'm not seeing the difference.
 

I'm still trying to figure this one out. So, if your child dies in a hit and run, does this mean that parents can sue Toyota or Ford, etc. for wrongful death? I'm not seeing the difference.
They're going on the angle that (metaphorically) Ford and Toyota ran ad campaigns encouraging hit-and-run. At least that's the claim.
 
Someone could go after a car dealer if a performance vehicle was involved or a big heavy truck, something that could be argued serves no purpose - and I hope those lawsuits happen, flog the government when they toss those cases but let ones go forward on a whacko who stole a gun.
 
Like Colion Noir and that shitbag lawyer on the news in CT pointed out.. their goal isnt to win the lawsuit. They know they wont win. The goal is to allow frivolous lawsuits to proceed so that the ensuing lawsuits that keep coming in the future will simply bankrupt any manufacturer out of business in legal fees fighting and settling said lawsuits

The shit is vile and diabolical in how well planned out it all is
 
Like Colion Noir and that shitbag lawyer on the news in CT pointed out.. their goal isnt to win the lawsuit. They know they wont win. The goal is to allow frivolous lawsuits to proceed so that the ensuing lawsuits that keep coming in the future will simply bankrupt any manufacturer out of business in legal fees fighting and settling said lawsuits

The shit is vile and diabolical in how well planned out it all is

I think that's disgusting. More people have been killed by cars than guns and I'm sick of mob mentality bullying businesses. To me, these people are just as dangerous as the shooter, to blame an object instead of the person.
 
Like Colion Noir and that shitbag lawyer on the news in CT pointed out.. their goal isnt to win the lawsuit. They know they wont win. The goal is to allow frivolous lawsuits to proceed so that the ensuing lawsuits that keep coming in the future will simply bankrupt any manufacturer out of business in legal fees fighting and settling said lawsuits... The shit is vile and diabolical in how well planned out it all is
It's worse than that.

Their goal isn't to win the lawsuit against Remington, their goal is to use discovery to force Remington to release all their internal discussions and marketing decisions, stuff that can be used against them both in future court cases, and in the court of public opinion:
AP said:
Lawyers for the plaintiffs are certain to request that Remington turn over volumes of documents as part of the discovery phase, providing a rare window into the inner-workings of how a major gun manufacturer markets its weapons. Those materials might include company emails, memos, business plans and corporate strategies, or anything that might suggest the company purposely marketed the firearm that may have compelled the shooter to use the weapon to carry out the slaughter.

The plaintiffs also believe the ruling will put gun companies on notice about how they conduct business knowing they could wind up in the courts in similar fashion.
 
Like Colion Noir and that shitbag lawyer on the news in CT pointed out.. their goal isnt to win the lawsuit. They know they wont win. The goal is to allow frivolous lawsuits to proceed so that the ensuing lawsuits that keep coming in the future will simply bankrupt any manufacturer out of business in legal fees fighting and settling said lawsuits

The shit is vile and diabolical in how well planned out it all is
So the only way to (possibly) convince them to stop is to sue every automaker, everytime and just keep harping on the fact if they are going to allow it for one legal product (no matter how marketed) they are going to have to allow it for every legal product.
 
and let Remington counter sue and recoup legal fees with damages for Slander.
And you honestly think there's a judge out there that wouldn't rule in on the side of those with the frivilous lawsuit just to save face? They'd even word it something along the likes of ..
"Even though the lawsuit was clearly of a frivolous nature, given the extreme circumstances in which the plaintiffs have themselves experienced and the extreme loss, this court finds no inherent intended wrongdoing on the part of the plantiffs against that of Remington Arms, and thus no reparations are to be issued by the plaintiffs to Remington arms for legal expenses incurred in the recent dismissed lawsuit"

That's how dangerous this ruling is
 
And you honestly think there's a judge out there that wouldn't rule in on the side of those with the frivilous lawsuit just to save face? They'd even word it something along the likes of ..
"Even though the lawsuit was clearly of a frivolous nature, given the extreme circumstances in which the plaintiffs have themselves experienced and the extreme loss, this court finds no inherent intended wrongdoing on the part of the plantiffs against that of Remington Arms, and thus no reparations are to be issued by the plaintiffs to Remington arms for legal expenses incurred in the recent dismissed lawsuit"

That's how dangerous this ruling is
Worked for that shop, (Lucky Gunner?) in the Colorado lawsuit.
 
I am sure that Smith and Wesson (or in reality American Outdoor Brands) has split the company and gave S&W the right to stand on its own again as a direct result of this ruling about Remington and Sandy Hook.

Only a matter of time before the frivolous lawsuit army tries to breach the S&W walls. This has always been about putting firearm companies out of business.

Unfortunately this opens another chance that should have been shut down.

Smith & Wesson to Split off into its Own Firearm Company - Guns.com
 
Conservatively 10X and perhaps 20X (or even more!) as many people die at the hands of the medical industry than by firearms. Where are the torrents of lawsuits? Rhetorical question of course. We all know the answer to this.
 
"Rudwall, the UMWA representative and a third-generation Remington employee, said he and his co-workers are cautiously open to stricter background checks and a tighter vetting process for firearm purchases."

Moron. As if NY doesn't already have enough "stricter background checks". As for the tighter vetting process, Adam Lanza stole the rifle he used. How are those proposed background checks gonna work for ya?
 
this is the silpery slope to lawsuites like this one if they win it can open up the door to all kinds of lawsuites. No product manufacturers will be safe. Look what is going on with the drug industry. No companies will be safe.
 
"Rudwall, the UMWA representative and a third-generation Remington employee, said he and his co-workers are cautiously open to stricter background checks and a tighter vetting process for firearm purchases."

Moron. As if NY doesn't already have enough "stricter background checks". As for the tighter vetting process, Adam Lanza stole the rifle he used. How are those proposed background checks gonna work for ya?
yeah, the only way it gets stricter is if "everyone in your household" has be background checked. I wouldn't put it past the Libs to propose that crap.
 
So the only way to (possibly) convince them to stop is to sue every automaker, everytime and just keep harping on the fact if they are going to allow it for one legal product (no matter how marketed) they are going to have to allow it for every legal product.
Of course, the goal is to make it no longer be a "legal product". They do not have that desire for cars.
 

That's too ridiculous for words.

If this were anywhere other than Connecticut or any of the ultra liberal northeastern states they would've been laughed out of court years ago.
 
Must be something very interesting in their books that they don't want the world to see. Lol.
 
Remington had filed for Chapter 11 protection in 2018 and emerged the same year under the control of its creditors.

Guessing maybe the creditors want this to go away. I'm sure they could give a rat's ass about legal precedent and the industry at large as long as the numbers eventually work in their favor.
 
Back
Top Bottom