Joined
·
10,987 Posts
I'm assuming the SCOTUS will get a look at this one.....
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Joined
·
3,289 Posts
I don’t understand it at all. It’s like sueing a car manufacturer after a drunk driver kills someone.
Joined
·
75,066 Posts
It opens up a pandora's box of litigation potentially....... I am so sick of there must be somebody to blame everytime something bad happens..... Well, sometimes there are just bad people.
Joined
·
20,349 Posts
Remington was initially ahead of the whole black rifle = it's a bad bad assault rifle label ... when they released their initial AR's in Green/ Camo.... it's the AR's under the Bushmaster brand that the conglomerate bought out and merged Remington with Bushmaster is where Remington inherited the "dreaded" Black Rifles. The Camo versions under the Remington name were essentially Bushmasters. Great little gun I have one of the Remington Camo jobs in 204. I think it's actually a real tree pattern Camo.
Also:
The new anti gun agenda, is brow beating the big banks like Wells Fargo and others into not loaning monies to gun companies and the NRA......
Joined
·
7,445 Posts
Listen to AOC she was questioning Wells Fargo ceo on that they should be responsible for lending money for the people that built the cages she called them for detained illegal immigrants . And she believes they should .
It’s scary what they think.
I listen to joe Rogan podcast with Alex Jones . Some crazy stuff on there but makes you think.
It’s scary what they think.
I listen to joe Rogan podcast with Alex Jones . Some crazy stuff on there but makes you think.
Joined
·
16,263 Posts
From what I gathered its more about how Remington advertised their weapon.. I saw some examples and if accurate I can see the plaintiffs point.. Remmy advertised it more as a weapon of destruction than a "sporting" weapon.
That being said the perp stole that weapon and killed it's owner so I'm not sold on that the advertising had much to do with the overall outcome.
Its New York so that hurts. I am sure it'll go to SCOTUS or at least it should.
That being said the perp stole that weapon and killed it's owner so I'm not sold on that the advertising had much to do with the overall outcome.
Its New York so that hurts. I am sure it'll go to SCOTUS or at least it should.
Joined
·
21,443 Posts
So by the way something is advertised, for example vehicle manufacturers showing their car driving fast on a mountain road, or 4 wheeling up steep, rocky mountains should show they are liable for accidents in similar situations.
Joined
·
20,349 Posts
Well.. you have to follow the small print at the bottom of the screen... closed track-road / Professional Drivers!
........Bean.... you have a link on these destruction claims by Remington?
Joined
·
16,263 Posts
well using the NY/Sandy Hook Parents logic yes..its not mine. I like to look at both sides of every argument. The vehicle advertisements you mention also have in print altho so tiny and fast its unreadable to most I would think that their" demo is on a closed course with a professional driver blah blah blah". I doubt Remmy had any such "Warning"
Joined
·
10,987 Posts
How would they possibly go about proving that advertisements had anything to do with what happened that day? Even if the advertisement is deemed to be inappropriate, There is no way to know if the shooter ever even saw those advertisements. He was just stealing Mom's gun. And there is also no way to know if those advertisements had any bearing on why Mom bought that particular gun in the first place. In all likelihood, she was taking the recommendation of a salesman at a gun store. There is absolutely no way to prove that an advertisement caused this tragedy.....NONE!
But in the end, it is a civil suit so they don't really have to prove anything. They just have to convince a CT jury that the big corporate gunmaker was the reason the shooter did what he did....I consider that a scary possibility. I hope the SCOTUS squashes this lawsuit.
But in the end, it is a civil suit so they don't really have to prove anything. They just have to convince a CT jury that the big corporate gunmaker was the reason the shooter did what he did....I consider that a scary possibility. I hope the SCOTUS squashes this lawsuit.
Joined
·
20,349 Posts
Connecticut . Will never prevail at Federal level. Even here it was 4-3. You cannot sue the manufacturer for how someone uses your product whether it is lawful or unlawful. With respect to advertising its a 1st amendment issue. Right of free speech. East coast liberal bs.
Joined
·
20,349 Posts
That's because they knowingly advertised for a product denying that it caused cancer when in fact their own documented research showed that nicotine was in fact a carcinogen. Every one knows guns are potentially lethal. That is their given purpose. I think that will be established as a given. Also, did the shooter read/watch their advertisement? Who knows. He was mentally ill and the mother, who he also killed and knew he was mentally ill and a minor, showed him how to shoot and did not secure the weapons.
Joined
·
20,349 Posts
NO!
It is a procession of legal whores exploiting society for personal gain at the expense of nondescript shareholders. The world of social justice knows no boundaries. It just keeps adding new contrived categories of concocted new victim statuses in order to make money. Victim hood is our new category of needy. Sound Familiar?????
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
