· Former Leader in Warning points!
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.I don't understand it at all. It's like sueing a car manufacturer after a drunk driver kills someone.
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.Video games do a much better job of marketing black rifles than Remington did. Most yutes have probably never seen an add by remmy pimpin AR's.
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.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.
Well.. you have to follow the small print at the bottom of the screen... closed track-road / Professional Drivers! ........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.
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"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.
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.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.
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.Cigarette manufacturers are paying out billions because of how they advertised their products
NO!No. They targeted youth. There were warnings on both their product and it's advertising. Their ads are censored and they are paying out billions and the first amendment didn't protect them.