Awww Jesus, here goes this now
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/c...newtown-shooting/ar-BBULpA1?OCID=ansmsnnews11
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/c...newtown-shooting/ar-BBULpA1?OCID=ansmsnnews11
Court rules Remington can be sued
- Thread starter Pro2a
- Start date
Welcome to ArizonaShooting.org!
Join today!
Welcome! You have been invited by delta_echo to join our community. Please click here to register.
Ballistic Therapy
Member
Regardless of how it turns out , it will cost Remington millions of dollars.
Hopefully when it is all done Remington will be able to sue for attorney fees.
Hopefully when it is all done Remington will be able to sue for attorney fees.
gunpoorboy1
Member
Not sure if it's possible but could Remington counter-sue? At the very least it seems like it would provide them the opportunity to bring out legitimate facts about the AR15 and take some of the focus off some of the un-truths or mis-leading facts that always seem to make the headlines. You know, the best defense is a good offense.
There need to show causation: “But for the advertising, the shooting would not have happened.”
They need to prove that the little psycho saw one of the advertisements, and said “That’s the gun I want to use.” IIRC, the gun belonged to his mother, whom he murdered by shooting her with a .22, then took the gun. So, we are supposed to believe that he murdered his mother, then said “My late mother had several guns, but I am going to steal the gun that I saw the advertisement for.”
More likely, he used the gun that looked like the ones the newspapers and TV stations kept showing, while saying “This is the best gun for mass murderers, useful only for killing the greatest number of people in the shortest amount of time.” That would make CNN responsible -- which is far more plausible.
They need to prove that the little psycho saw one of the advertisements, and said “That’s the gun I want to use.” IIRC, the gun belonged to his mother, whom he murdered by shooting her with a .22, then took the gun. So, we are supposed to believe that he murdered his mother, then said “My late mother had several guns, but I am going to steal the gun that I saw the advertisement for.”
More likely, he used the gun that looked like the ones the newspapers and TV stations kept showing, while saying “This is the best gun for mass murderers, useful only for killing the greatest number of people in the shortest amount of time.” That would make CNN responsible -- which is far more plausible.
If I was on the legal team, I would push back using their own terminology: "gun owners have substantial responsibility to take reasonable measures to protect against theft " (Center for American Progress).
STATES WITH MANDATORY LOSS/THEFT REPORTING LAWS - Connecticut (Giffords Law Center)
So Remington shows in court that the gun owner did not take responsibility for protecting her rifles and in fact 'trained' the suspect in using the rifle effectively. Also causing her death.
Now comes the next part by Loyola law professor Blaine LeCesne weighing on the question of liability: If a car thief finds a vehicle with the key inside, makes off with said vehicle but careens into a school bus, seriously injuring or killing those aboard, the courts would be hard pressed to find the car owner responsible, LeCesne said.
Under the legal doctrine of proximate cause, LeCesne said the act of stealing the car and the recklessness or negligence involved in hitting or injuring another victim would supersede the car owner's negligence in leaving the car unsecured. He didn't know of any cases in which a car owner (or car manufacturer) had been sued or found civilly liable for injuries resulting from a stolen car.....
But many other variables would come into play if the courts attempt to decide legal responsibility for a stolen gun. Was the gun left in a place where it was easily accessible to be stolen? Was it in a car in front of the gun owner's house? Was it in a very high crime area or across the street from a school?
In short, like the car if the gun is used negligently, a gun owner may end up in court. But if the gun is used intentionally and criminally, the owner isn't responsible. I would apply the same for the gun manufacturer.
Remington should counter sue the victims after they prove in a court of law that the gun owner's estate was responsible for their own gun neglect and thus the resulting deaths of others by the thief / family member. This might set the precedent that the liability falls back to the criminal.
STATES WITH MANDATORY LOSS/THEFT REPORTING LAWS - Connecticut (Giffords Law Center)
So Remington shows in court that the gun owner did not take responsibility for protecting her rifles and in fact 'trained' the suspect in using the rifle effectively. Also causing her death.
Now comes the next part by Loyola law professor Blaine LeCesne weighing on the question of liability: If a car thief finds a vehicle with the key inside, makes off with said vehicle but careens into a school bus, seriously injuring or killing those aboard, the courts would be hard pressed to find the car owner responsible, LeCesne said.
Under the legal doctrine of proximate cause, LeCesne said the act of stealing the car and the recklessness or negligence involved in hitting or injuring another victim would supersede the car owner's negligence in leaving the car unsecured. He didn't know of any cases in which a car owner (or car manufacturer) had been sued or found civilly liable for injuries resulting from a stolen car.....
But many other variables would come into play if the courts attempt to decide legal responsibility for a stolen gun. Was the gun left in a place where it was easily accessible to be stolen? Was it in a car in front of the gun owner's house? Was it in a very high crime area or across the street from a school?
In short, like the car if the gun is used negligently, a gun owner may end up in court. But if the gun is used intentionally and criminally, the owner isn't responsible. I would apply the same for the gun manufacturer.
Remington should counter sue the victims after they prove in a court of law that the gun owner's estate was responsible for their own gun neglect and thus the resulting deaths of others by the thief / family member. This might set the precedent that the liability falls back to the criminal.
Doc Holliday
Member
Next up, Oneida (tableware manufacturer) gets sued because someone used one of their forks to stab someone in the neck.
Ridiculous.
Ridiculous.
shooter444
Member
Ranger1 said:
This ^ ^ ^,.... inch by inch,... step by step,... slowly they chip away at USA Constitutionally protected Human Rights,... in support of the One World created secret sewer government coup, currently attacking us.
Black_water
Member
Just another silly ruling.
As stated, misuse of any product should result in lawsuits I guess.
As stated, misuse of any product should result in lawsuits I guess.