Frivolous litigants crucified by court-Rachel Maddow melts down

[TheGreatGatsby]

Well, let's look at this. The case was clearly frivolous. But okay, now the gun makers know this; and there lawyers know this. What's to stop them from allowing it to go to court just for the sake of racking up charges (and publicity)? I think that's what happened here, tbh. Based upon my supposition, I believe it is very possible that they took advantage of grieving parents.

It's a good point. The plaintiff lawyers should also have to pay.

Maybe. But that's a dangerous precedent. If lawyers start having to pay for lost cases, many will not take legit cases or otherwise leave the profession. There could be unwanted consequences.

Nope, I disagree. I think a lawyer knows darned well when a "frivolous" case is being brought before him. If the lawyer doesn't know, then he or she should probably leave the profession.

Yea, lawyers do know a frivolous case; but what happens when you have a case that has merit but is not a slam dunk? Then, you're asking lawyers to take a huge risk that they won't take and then you're taking away good legal representation from the citizenry.

Well, as long as they aren't knowingly taking a frivolous suit, I don't see why they would have to worry.

Not all lost suits are frivolous. This one clearly was. Perhaps though, a modest fine for suits that are thrown out and deemed frivolous.

 

[ChrisL]

It's a good point. The plaintiff lawyers should also have to pay.

Maybe. But that's a dangerous precedent. If lawyers start having to pay for lost cases, many will not take legit cases or otherwise leave the profession. There could be unwanted consequences.

Nope, I disagree. I think a lawyer knows darned well when a "frivolous" case is being brought before him. If the lawyer doesn't know, then he or she should probably leave the profession.

Yea, lawyers do know a frivolous case; but what happens when you have a case that has merit but is not a slam dunk? Then, you're asking lawyers to take a huge risk that they won't take and then you're taking away good legal representation from the citizenry.

Well, as long as they aren't knowingly taking a frivolous suit, I don't see why they would have to worry.

Not all lost suits are frivolous. This one clearly was. Perhaps though, a modest fine for suits that are thrown out and deemed frivolous.

I know that! Lol! I'm saying that a lawyer does know a truly frivolous suit. Lawsuits make everything more expensive for all of us.

 

[westwall]

I don't understand how they can blame the gun makers. It is silly beyond belief. So if someone drowns in their backyard pool, can you sue the pool manufacturer? No . . .

It is total BS. People who bring frivolous lawsuits at least do need to pay for the court costs imposed.

There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.

Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.

Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.

I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.

How so? I think it's very reasonable to charge the defense court costs to the ones filing a frivolous suit. I don't see anything unreasonable about that. Maybe the lawyers who take the case should also have to pay. I think it is good because it will hopefully cut down on such lawsuits being brought to the courts, clogging up the system with their stupidity.

Well, let's look at this. The case was clearly frivolous. But okay, now the gun makers know this; and there lawyers know this. What's to stop them from allowing it to go to court just for the sake of racking up charges (and publicity)? I think that's what happened here, tbh. Based upon my supposition, I believe it is very possible that they took advantage of grieving parents.

The second the plaintiff wishes to, they can drop a lawsuit. They might have to pay court costs to get the agreement, but they are NEVER required to continue a case that's a loser. The lawyers are guilty of legal malpractice and they are no doubt bought and paid for by Bloomie and they ultimately will be on the hook.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

There's already a safeguard in place though. Judges are supposed to throw out frivolous suits. Lawyers are a part of doing business otherwise.

Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.

Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.

I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.

How so? I think it's very reasonable to charge the defense court costs to the ones filing a frivolous suit. I don't see anything unreasonable about that. Maybe the lawyers who take the case should also have to pay. I think it is good because it will hopefully cut down on such lawsuits being brought to the courts, clogging up the system with their stupidity.

Well, let's look at this. The case was clearly frivolous. But okay, now the gun makers know this; and there lawyers know this. What's to stop them from allowing it to go to court just for the sake of racking up charges (and publicity)? I think that's what happened here, tbh. Based upon my supposition, I believe it is very possible that they took advantage of grieving parents.

The second the plaintiff wishes to, they can drop a lawsuit. They might have to pay court costs to get the agreement, but they are NEVER required to continue a case that's a loser. The lawyers are guilty of legal malpractice and they are no doubt bought and paid for by Bloomie and they ultimately will be on the hook.

Malpractice is losing a suit? I'm not seeing that.

 

[JoeB131]

[

And the medical professionals that SHOULD have put those names into the system, didn't do it. Hold THEM responsible for the failure to do as they are required by law.

The medical professionals didn't sell the guys a gun.

And I promise you the first time a gun seller goes to big boy prison and loses his livelihood, you are going them get a lot more picky of who they sell to.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Hey Shitforbrains. it was not a MILITARY GRADE WEAPON and there is no such thing as a 100 round CLIP

stupid is as Joeb posts

I say 'clip' because I know it pisses you gun nuts off.

But, yeah, the AR-15 was designed FOR THE MILITARY, so it's a military grade weapon.

 

[WinterBorn]

[

And the medical professionals that SHOULD have put those names into the system, didn't do it. Hold THEM responsible for the failure to do as they are required by law.

The medical professionals didn't sell the guys a gun.

And I promise you the first time a gun seller goes to big boy prison and loses his livelihood, you are going them get a lot more picky of who they sell to.

No, they didn't sell him the gun. But they are the reason his name was not in the system. And if they had done their job, as they are required to do, he would not have been able to buy a gun from the dealer.

Besides, the gun dealer will never go to prison as long as they do the background check per the law. They are basically getting the approval of the federal gov't. That is enough. But the feds need to go after these psychiatrists for not reporting like theyare required to do.

 

[JoeB131]

[

No, actually, I really don't. In countries where they don't let average citizens buy guns, they don't have incidents like these.

yeah like Nazi German, Maoist China and Pol Pot's cambodia

Once again, repeating the lie that Nazi Germany had gun control. Uh, no. Hitler actually repealed the Weimer Republic's gun laws. the guy who confiscated all the guns in Germany was my hero, Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Since then, Germany does allow private gun ownership, but it isn't considered a "right", and you have to demonstrate you are a responsible gun owner. As a result, Germany has 250 gun homicides a year compared to our 11,000.

 

[JoeB131]

No, they didn't sell him the gun. But they are the reason his name was not in the system. And if they had done their job, as they are required to do, he would not have been able to buy a gun from the dealer.

Besides, the gun dealer will never go to prison as long as they do the background check per the law. They are basically getting the approval of the federal gov't. That is enough. But the feds need to go after these psychiatrists for not reporting like theyare required to do.

No, they should go after the gun sellers. They should totally bankrupt these guys and make them pariahs in their communities. they should railroad these guys in a kangaroo court with a jury of 12 moms who lost children to gun violence.

And when these guys have their lives COMPLETELY RUINED, the next gun sellers isn't going to sell to the crazy person, no matter what paperwork he has.

 

[JoeB131]

I know that! Lol! I'm saying that a lawyer does know a truly frivolous suit. Lawsuits make everything more expensive for all of us.

They also keep companies from acting in a reckless manner by keeping dangerous products off the shelf.

So here you have a gun industry that pretty much acts in a reckless manner. There's no universe where selling Joker Holmes an AR15 and a 100 round clip is a good idea. But the thing is, the gun industry WANTS Joker homes and Jamal gangbanger and a bunch of other people to have them so scared little white people like you want them, too.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, they didn't sell him the gun. But they are the reason his name was not in the system. And if they had done their job, as they are required to do, he would not have been able to buy a gun from the dealer.

Besides, the gun dealer will never go to prison as long as they do the background check per the law. They are basically getting the approval of the federal gov't. That is enough. But the feds need to go after these psychiatrists for not reporting like theyare required to do.

No, they should go after the gun sellers. They should totally bankrupt these guys and make them pariahs in their communities. they should railroad these guys in a kangaroo court with a jury of 12 moms who lost children to gun violence.

And when these guys have their lives COMPLETELY RUINED, the next gun sellers isn't going to sell to the crazy person, no matter what paperwork he has.

Just because you hate guns does not mean someone will go to prison after following the letter of the law. You expect a clerk at a gun store to make a psychological evaluation based on hair color. Utterly ridiculous.

 

[WinterBorn]

I know that! Lol! I'm saying that a lawyer does know a truly frivolous suit. Lawsuits make everything more expensive for all of us.

They also keep companies from acting in a reckless manner by keeping dangerous products off the shelf.

So here you have a gun industry that pretty much acts in a reckless manner. There's no universe where selling Joker Holmes an AR15 and a 100 round clip is a good idea. But the thing is, the gun industry WANTS Joker homes and Jamal gangbanger and a bunch of other people to have them so scared little white people like you want them, too.

First you have to prove that Holmes acted crazy when he was in the store. You want to give mental health professionals a free pass, but send gun dealers to prison when they broke no law and followed the laws to the letter. That is as crazy as Holmes, but without the balls to actually do anything.

 

[BlackSand]

If you are so fucking delusional that you don't think special interests are writing our laws, just don't think there is anything I can do for you, other than recommend that the people you live with secure all sharp objects.

Product manufacturers CAN be held responsible for unethical business practices and reckless marketing strategies. Again, I go back to the tobacco industry, which did things like marketing to children with cartoon characters.

So you agree that the politicians you elect can be bought and paid for ... And that manufactures can be held responsible for the lack of personal responsibility in progressive hellholes.

No surprises there ... That is pretty much the way of the world with progressives.
Never accept that responsibility or accountability associated with your decisions ... And always rely on the perpetual excuse that everything is someone else's fault.

I agree that you are fairly delusional ... And willfully inept at accepting responsibility.

.

 

[ChrisL]

[

And the medical professionals that SHOULD have put those names into the system, didn't do it. Hold THEM responsible for the failure to do as they are required by law.

The medical professionals didn't sell the guys a gun.

And I promise you the first time a gun seller goes to big boy prison and loses his livelihood, you are going them get a lot more picky of who they sell to.

So tell us, a person goes to get a gun, passes a check and is sold a gun, and you want to hold the seller responsible for . . . what exactly?

 

[ChrisL]

Well, apparently they don't always do that . . . obviously.

Perhaps, there was no motion to dismiss b/c certain factions wanted the notoriety.

I'm for the law if there's a compelling reason shown; but honestly, this reeks of lobbyists.

How so? I think it's very reasonable to charge the defense court costs to the ones filing a frivolous suit. I don't see anything unreasonable about that. Maybe the lawyers who take the case should also have to pay. I think it is good because it will hopefully cut down on such lawsuits being brought to the courts, clogging up the system with their stupidity.

Well, let's look at this. The case was clearly frivolous. But okay, now the gun makers know this; and there lawyers know this. What's to stop them from allowing it to go to court just for the sake of racking up charges (and publicity)? I think that's what happened here, tbh. Based upon my supposition, I believe it is very possible that they took advantage of grieving parents.

The second the plaintiff wishes to, they can drop a lawsuit. They might have to pay court costs to get the agreement, but they are NEVER required to continue a case that's a loser. The lawyers are guilty of legal malpractice and they are no doubt bought and paid for by Bloomie and they ultimately will be on the hook.

Malpractice is losing a suit? I'm not seeing that.

I think the malpractice would be taking a case that you know isn't going to go anywhere. It's not like the lawyers don't know. They know.

 

[WinterBorn]

[

And the medical professionals that SHOULD have put those names into the system, didn't do it. Hold THEM responsible for the failure to do as they are required by law.

The medical professionals didn't sell the guys a gun.

And I promise you the first time a gun seller goes to big boy prison and loses his livelihood, you are going them get a lot more picky of who they sell to.

So tell us, a person goes to get a gun, passes a check and is sold a gun, and you want to hold the seller responsible for . . . what exactly?

JoeyB wants to hold the gun seller responsible for knowing the mental state of the customer AND for what he does with the gun after he leaves the store.

But he doesn't want to hold the mental health professionals responsible for reporting crazies to the system, as they are required to do.

 

[ChrisL]

[

No, actually, I really don't. In countries where they don't let average citizens buy guns, they don't have incidents like these.

yeah like Nazi German, Maoist China and Pol Pot's cambodia

Once again, repeating the lie that Nazi Germany had gun control. Uh, no. Hitler actually repealed the Weimer Republic's gun laws. the guy who confiscated all the guns in Germany was my hero, Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Since then, Germany does allow private gun ownership, but it isn't considered a "right", and you have to demonstrate you are a responsible gun owner. As a result, Germany has 250 gun homicides a year compared to our 11,000.

You are another liar with no integrity. How can you live with yourself knowing that you are a slimy piece of crud?

Should U.S. Gun-Rights Advocates Be Citing the Holocaust in Their Opposition to Gun Control Tablet Magazine

There are various degrees of myth and truth in both perspectives. Unfortunately, most recapitulations of National Socialist gun-control policy are written not by experts in German history but by various ideological players. Still, it is indeed true that in 1938, the Nazis expanded upon Germany’s already restrictive gun laws, most of which were established during the Weimar Republic. The Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons decreed that “Jews are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as cutting or stabbing weapons. Those now having in their possession weapons and ammunition must at once surrender them to the local police authority.”

 

[turtledude]

[

No, actually, I really don't. In countries where they don't let average citizens buy guns, they don't have incidents like these.

yeah like Nazi German, Maoist China and Pol Pot's cambodia

Once again, repeating the lie that Nazi Germany had gun control. Uh, no. Hitler actually repealed the Weimer Republic's gun laws. the guy who confiscated all the guns in Germany was my hero, Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Since then, Germany does allow private gun ownership, but it isn't considered a "right", and you have to demonstrate you are a responsible gun owner. As a result, Germany has 250 gun homicides a year compared to our 11,000.

control freaks like you never tell us how you would get the USA to that point
conquered nations have their guns taken away by the conquerors. I bet you have wet dreams of UN thugs seizing american arms? the fact is NO ONE Believes your constant garment soiling complaints about guns is based on your desire for less crime

 

[turtledude]

I know that! Lol! I'm saying that a lawyer does know a truly frivolous suit. Lawsuits make everything more expensive for all of us.

They also keep companies from acting in a reckless manner by keeping dangerous products off the shelf.

So here you have a gun industry that pretty much acts in a reckless manner. There's no universe where selling Joker Holmes an AR15 and a 100 round clip is a good idea. But the thing is, the gun industry WANTS Joker homes and Jamal gangbanger and a bunch of other people to have them so scared little white people like you want them, too.

Joeb Shows his true colors-guns should be banned. he lies about what the gun industry does because he really wants NO ONE to be able to own a gun while freedom loving americans realize WE NEED GUNS in case assholes like JOEB get into power and want to use MEN WITH GUNS to oppress gun owners

 

[turtledude]

No, they didn't sell him the gun. But they are the reason his name was not in the system. And if they had done their job, as they are required to do, he would not have been able to buy a gun from the dealer.

Besides, the gun dealer will never go to prison as long as they do the background check per the law. They are basically getting the approval of the federal gov't. That is enough. But the feds need to go after these psychiatrists for not reporting like theyare required to do.

No, they should go after the gun sellers. They should totally bankrupt these guys and make them pariahs in their communities. they should railroad these guys in a kangaroo court with a jury of 12 moms who lost children to gun violence.

And when these guys have their lives COMPLETELY RUINED, the next gun sellers isn't going to sell to the crazy person, no matter what paperwork he has.

then that gun seller who had his life ruined should target those who ruined their lives and get even withthem. that is why we should have guns-if someone wrongfully ruins your life, you have the recourse to fight the oppression with arms. People most whining about gun rights tend to be the scumbags who engage in behavior that would justify GOOD HONEST PEOPLE shooting them. Crooks, child molesters, robbers, and power hungry government thugs.