Victims mother sues gun owner

[firestorm]

Honestly I wouldn't have started with the name calling anyway. I understand that she has had a great loss, and I don't have that kind of weight on my own back. But would you say that because of the loss she should have a free hand to do whatever she thinks might make her feel a little better? Her feelings, as hurt as they are do not EVER stand in front of my rights. I feel terrible for her loss, especially as it was her son doing the right thing, but that gives her no right to infringe on my ability to live my life. So until it is clear to her she is wrong here, or this is thrown out and she is chastised for it, she is the enemy, and I will not back away from that position. We can't afford to feel bad for our enemies.

 

[Fixxah]

She is mis-guided and IS DEFINITELY effing with our rights and IS the enemy of gunowners at this time. For this I am pissed and will try to get the correct viewpoint across if our paths cross. Maybe on the Fourth of July at the fireworks who knows. Then again, it may never happen.

 

[TomH]

Get a clue. Her son didn't do shit except try to tackle the scumbag and die.

The Jones' have more money than they know what to do with and for many years have donated to lots of needy folks, anonymously. She is trying to find a way to legitimize her loss and unless you have lost a loved one in such a manner, go f#ck yourself.
While I find her suit to be grasping at straws, she is no bitch.
Show a little respect.

Disagree, she is one. Donating money and losing a son don't give you carte blanche to do what she's doing. What a POS. This is how people start groups like the brady bunch, etc. It all starts with just one innocent life, and a misguided fool (and all the fools who follow them). Don't try to trample my rights.

 

[NHAtHeart]

Jones claims in her lawsuit that Secord should have taken steps to secure his gun when he learned his grandson had returned to the area after being released from prison. She also says he failed to report the theft of the gun promptly.
Hey, memo to stupid bitch, neither one of those things are legally required in NH. Good luck with that.

-Mike


Mike, While I agree it is a complete waste of time and she may have been ill avised by some scumbag laywer...until you have lost a child you may not understand but you do alot of crazy things....calling her a dumb bitch is just un-kind given her circumstances .

Just because she's sad doesn't mean she's not an idiot, her son was killed, it's sad but she needs to not use it to push an agenda against all legal gun owners. Some dude stole a gun and killed her son, tough shit, bad things happen to good people, now stay the **** out of my business you moonbat bitch.

/rant

 

[dwarven1]

Jones said she hopes her lawsuit will send a message to gun owners to make sure their guns are stored securely.

“That is where I’ve taken this, not out of retaliation because it’s not that,’’ she said. Instead, her hope is that “maybe something else can become of it, and in this instance, just maybe trying to stiffen up the gun laws in New Hampshire or putting some responsibility on a homeowner that owns guns.’’

I think she's kidding herself - I think she's so angry, still, that she wants to take her rage out on everyone who owns guns. This is revenge on anyone she can reach, plain and simple.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Hey, memo to stupid bitch, neither one of those things are legally required in NH. Good luck with that.

-Mike

No, but just because something doesn't have a criminal penalty attached to it doesn't mean it can't be grounds for civil rather than criminal liability. Nonetheless, do you have a duty to the public to lock up your guns in your home? I'd say no, and that's likely the question here.

However, Massachusetts criminal laws would lead to a claim of negligence per se--and this being a federal court diversity case, the exact same judge in the exact same courtroom ruling over two identical cases could arrive to two different conclusions based on where the act occured.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Get a clue. Her son didn't do shit except try to tackle the scumbag and die.

The Jones' have more money than they know what to do with and for many years have donated to lots of needy folks, anonymously. She is trying to find a way to legitimize her loss and unless you have lost a loved one in such a manner, go f#ck yourself.
While I find her suit to be grasping at straws, she is no bitch.
Show a little respect.

I don't care what you think of the lawsuit, it pisses me off too. Her battle is in her head and playing out for all to see. Her son would have told her not to do it and one day she may see the light. It may take years.

Last Tuesday I sat through my third parole hearing from a killing in 1990 where five racists chased down and savagely beat and murdered a loved one. Now, every two then three years we will sit at the next one, then, the next one, then all over again. The rage you feel as the board goes into great detail of those moments in time and then your family tells the board of the reality of our "new" lives from the fateful phone call from the homicide detectives until present day. It never goes away.

Mrs. Jones will forever think "what if" as we all do but nothing will change. Many years from now she will still have the nightmares and scream his name, but nothing changes. She may say she forgives his killer but that is bullshit. She would strangle him if given the chance although she'd be in a long line. The lawsuit will be a waste of time but she has plenty. We all grieve in our own way, this is part of hers.

If any of you ninjas and commandos were able to sit down with her for five minutes you would still disagree with her views on the gun issue but not one of you would look her in the eye and say she is a bitch. Leave it for those four legged females that you all would lay down your lives for if you had to.

Ditto. I don't see why some modest civility can't be shown here.

I actually went to Iraq with the sister of the victim and daughter of the plaintiff in this case. Good people beyond measure. While I think the focus of their litigation is misplaced, I can certainly understand it.

 

[ISOTOX]

Just because she's sad doesn't mean she's not an idiot, her son was killed, it's sad but she needs to not use it to push an agenda against all legal gun owners. Some dude stole a gun and killed her son, tough shit, bad things happen to good people, now stay the **** out of my business you moonbat bitch.




Blah! Blah! LOL.....

 

[Fixxah]

I think she's kidding herself - I think she's so angry, still, that she wants to take her rage out on everyone who owns guns. This is revenge on anyone she can reach, plain and simple.

Finally, someone hears the tree fall in the forrest.

Ditto. I don't see why some modest civility can't be shown here.

I actually went to Iraq with the sister of the victim and daughter of the plaintiff in this case. Good people beyond measure. While I think the focus of their litigation is misplaced, I can certainly understand it.

Thank you.

 

[ISOTOX]

Finally, someone hears the tree fall in the forrest.

Thank you.

Ditto....

 

[dwarven1]

I think she's kidding herself - I think she's so angry, still, that she wants to take her rage out on everyone who owns guns. This is revenge on anyone she can reach, plain and simple.

Finally, someone hears the tree fall in the forest.

I understand her. All too well. I know I've posted before about my friend Harvey, killed by some scumbag in NYC for a free bus transfer!! And Harvey was disarmed, like almost EVERY law-abiding New Yorker, by that damned Sullivan Act. He was killed 31 years ago and it STILL infuriates me that that un-Constitutional law still stays on the books!!

So yes... she's kidding herself, and I know it. I don't know if she knows it and realizes she's suing the wrong party or if she really thinks that this misguided action will do some good.

 

[Bob P]

Forget it

 

[Auntie Crazy]

What's with all the vitriol? Whining and crying and calling people names is for bratty children. If you want to make a change or defeat an opponent, acting with civility and developing an appropriate counter-strategy by taking the time to understand their motives is a whole lot more effective.

Sheez, people. We can do better than this!

AC

 

[NHAtHeart]

What's with all the vitriol? Whining and crying and calling people names is for bratty children. If you want to make a change or defeat an opponent, acting with civility and developing an appropriate counter-strategy by taking the time to understand their motives is a whole lot more effective.

Sheez, people. We can do better than this!

AC

For a long time gun owners have been the civil crowd, willing to hear people out and compromise. Well that has always been a one way street, when you're dealing with an irrational thought process there can never be enough compromise, so what she gets a storage law pushed through in NH? Then what? It was a pistol that killed her son right? Nobody needs a pistol, if pistols were illegal he would still be alive, ban pistols. If ammo couldn't be sold to felons he'd still be alive right? Require a license to buy ammo.

People are sick and tired of one persons tragedy curtailing the rights of a whole population of people. She's playing the emotion card to try and hold someone accountable who isn't and it's the same logic the brady bunch uses to get anti-gun bills passed in states like NY and MA.

Civility hasn't worked because the enemy is not civil or rational, she's emotionally distraught and wants someone to pay. Well today it's the grandfather, tomorrow it's the gunowners of NH, the day after that it's the gunowners of the U.S.

So that is why I say as far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter if she's a nice person in other facets of her life, I don't interact with other facets of her life. The one piece of her life I have interaction with is the fact she is suing someone for doing nothing wrong and plans to ruin his life because of her personal axe to grind. I find that unacceptable moonbat lunacy and will call it as such.

 

[Fixxah]

Much better.

 

[ISOTOX]

Agree....

 

[Terminator03]

For a long time gun owners have been the civil crowd, willing to hear people out and compromise. Well that has always been a one way street, when you're dealing with an irrational thought process there can never be enough compromise, so what she gets a storage law pushed through in NH? Then what? It was a pistol that killed her son right? Nobody needs a pistol, if pistols were illegal he would still be alive, ban pistols. If ammo couldn't be sold to felons he'd still be alive right? Require a license to buy ammo.

People are sick and tired of one persons tragedy curtailing the rights of a whole population of people. She's playing the emotion card to try and hold someone accountable who isn't and it's the same logic the brady bunch uses to get anti-gun bills passed in states like NY and MA.

Civility hasn't worked because the enemy is not civil or rational, she's emotionally distraught and wants someone to pay. Well today it's the grandfather, tomorrow it's the gunowners of NH, the day after that it's the gunowners of the U.S.

So that is why I say as far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter if she's a nice person in other facets of her life, I don't interact with other facets of her life. The one piece of her life I have interaction with is the fact she is suing someone for doing nothing wrong and plans to ruin his life because of her personal axe to grind. I find that unacceptable moonbat lunacy and will call it as such.

Very well said!

 

[Scarecrow]

 

[rwl1955]

She sounds like a potential Carolyn McCarthy. Last thing we need is another misinformed anti-gun zealot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_McCarthy

 

[drgrant]

J
Mike, While I agree it is a complete waste of time and she may have been ill avised by some scumbag laywer...until you have lost a child you may not understand but you do alot of crazy things....calling her a dumb bitch is just un-kind given her circumstances .

I understand the "doing crazy things" part. I'd probably freak out, too.

The thing is, her suing the crap out of someone will not bring her child back, though, that's the problem. And if she gets her way (which thankfully, is EXTREMELY doubtful) it makes bad civil case law... that we have to deal with for the rest of our lives.

To be honest though, I blame the ambulance chaser type lawyer(s) she's probably working with more than her. Most of those scumbags frequently manipulate grieving families of victims into filing lawsuits, trying to make them believe it will result in a form of closure. They take advantage of a person's grief or despair and try to turn it into profit for themselves.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

She sounds like a potential Carolyn McCarthy. Last thing we need is another misinformed anti-gun zealot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_McCarthy

Actually if all the antis currently sitting in congress were replaced by clones of her we'd be doing pretty good, because she is so utterly clueless and inept that none of her bills ever gain traction. She about as smart as a sack of hammers. Same thing with Linsky, Creem, etc, and the antis we have currently sitting in MA gov. They have no idea how to craft bills that actually have a chance of passing.

-Mike

 

[IrradiatedBacon]

Actually if all the antis currently sitting in congress were replaced by clones of her we'd be doing pretty good, because she is so utterly clueless and inept that none of her bills ever gain traction. She about as smart as a sack of hammers. Same thing with Linsky, Creem, etc, and the antis we have currently sitting in MA gov. They have no idea how to craft bills that actually have a chance of passing.

-Mike

Agreed... but don't insult hammers by bringing them down to her level.

 

[rwl1955]

Actually if all the antis currently sitting in congress were replaced by clones of her we'd be doing pretty good, because she is so utterly clueless and inept that none of her bills ever gain traction. She about as smart as a sack of hammers. Same thing with Linsky, Creem, etc, and the antis we have currently sitting in MA gov. They have no idea how to craft bills that actually have a chance of passing.

-Mike

*******
But they get the face time on TV to spread their anti-gun agenda.

 

[drgrant]

*******
But they get the face time on TV to spread their anti-gun agenda.

Yes, and then this happens..... which makes it all the better....

 

[rwl1955]

Yes, and then this happens..... which makes it all the better....

*****
Yes, we know she`s an idiot but the general public doesn`t. She gets face time to spout her ignorant anti-gun message which plays well to the masses. Do you think that interview convinced any of her supporters she`s a one issue politician who doesn`t know what the hell she`s talking about?

 

[namedpipes]

While I empathize with losing her child, WTF?

 

[drgrant]

*****
Yes, we know she`s an idiot but the general public doesn`t. She gets face time to spout her ignorant anti-gun message which plays well to the masses. Do you think that interview convinced any of her supporters she`s a one issue politician who doesn`t know what the hell she`s talking about?

Actually I disagree, her message doesn't play well to the masses, frankly. If that was true guns would be completely banned already.

This video shows you what kind of a clown she really is, and you don't need to be a "gun person" to see that.

-Mike

 

[usp45ct]

Actually I disagree, her message doesn't play well to the masses, frankly. If that was true guns would be completely banned already.

This video shows you what kind of a clown she really is, and you don't need to be a "gun person" to see that.

-Mike

I agree.the fact that the MSNBC reporter is dogging her shows her ignorance and her refusal to answer the question and spew forth her opinion kind of makes her look like a joke.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Exactly!! If it were to make its way through The First District Court of Appeals, we would have the same storage law that Ma. has without our legislature voting on it.
So what she is doing is trying to force MasShitchusetts laws on the rest of the region, By way of case law.

Respectfully, that's incorrect. The federal court is debating New Hampshire state tort law under its diversity jurisdiction. If they were debating federal tort law, then yes, the 1st Circuit decision would then bind the rest of the circuit to include Massachusetts.

Coincidentally, had the event occured in MA, she probably would have won her case under a theory of negligence per se using 140/131L as a legislatively-enacted standard of care, provided she could still get over the proximate cause hurdle.

 

[Twigg]

she should be laughed out of court, period.

...and this is exactly what happened. New Hampshire will not hold third parties responsible for the criminal acts of others.

The announcement has a seperate thread of discussion. Do a search.

New Hampshire remains a free state. (Well, free-er then ma. anyway.)