Sandy Hook Parents, Remington agree to $73 million settlement

[TNHarley]

See above, stupid.

The answer, ACCORDING TO YOUR LINK, is no, Dumbfuck. They did not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If Ford markets their Mustangs that they are safe to drive after drinking, or has a commercial showing it being driven 120 mph, they will be.

In other words... you have no idea why Ford cannot be so held liable.

 

[TNHarley]

"we didnt want money but we couldnt settle for less than 70M dollars
No sympathy for those parents. Not one fucking drop.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I am sure this doesnt matter to you, but you bedwetting pussies are setting disturbing precedents because of your greed and hackery.

And their irrational fear of firearms.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

And their irrational fear of firearms.

It's not an irrational fear it's about power and control

*****SMILE*****

 

[toobfreak]

Finally, a gun maker held liable. Who woulda thunk it.

Remington owed them not a dime. They are no more responsible for crime than Ford and Chevy are responsible for bad driving!

 

[toobfreak]

Marketing

Show us some of the recalcitrant Remington "marketing."

 

[M14 Shooter]

If Ford markets their Mustangs that they are safe to drive after drinking, or has a commercial showing it being driven 120 mph, they will be.

Here you go. Every bit the equal to the Remington advertisements.

 

[g5000]

liable for what, dumbfuck?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-168/118198/20191004151558181_19-168BriefInOpposition.pdf

 

[g5000]

The Sandy Hook victims were slain in a commando-style assault on the school. Their killer’s weapon of choice was a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, manufactured and marketed by petitioners. The XM15-E2S was designed for military combat, specifically to inflict maximum lethal harm on the enemy. Petitioners’ marketing emphasized precisely those characteristics of the firearm. In words and images, petitioners touted the XM15-E2S as a combat-tested weapon that would bestow the power to “perform under pressure” and “single-handedly” conquer “forces of opposition.”

 

[toobfreak]

I am sure this doesnt matter to you, but you bedwetting pussies are setting disturbing precedents because of your greed and hackery.

I think I'll sue Seagram now for the next time I get drunk, trip and fall down. You know, like our "president."

 

[odanny]

Here you go. Every bit the equal to the Remington advertisements.

Lol, yea right.

 

[odanny]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-168/118198/20191004151558181_19-168BriefInOpposition.pdf

He won't read it, not smart enough.

 

[toobfreak]

Remington turned over thousands of documents.

You mean they complied with a court order.

 

[odanny]

I think I'll sue Seagram now for the next time I get drunk, trip and fall down. You know, like our "president."

Better off suing them for being a dumbass.

 

[odanny]

The families pointed to how the AR-15-style Bushmaster rifle was portrayed by the company as a weapon of war, employing slogans and product placement in video games that invoked combat violence. The lawsuit contended that hypermasculine themes — including an advertisement with a photograph of the weapon and the slogan “Consider your man card reissued” — specifically appealed to troubled young men, like the gunman, who was 20.

The lawsuit was originally filed in Connecticut state court in 2014, and it meandered its way through the court system for years without notching much progress. It was moved to federal court before a judge sent it back to the state level, where the families were given a glimmer of hope when the State Superior Court judge, Barbara N. Bellis, allowed the case to move closer to trial before dismissing it, finding that the case was of the sort that the federal protections were meant to curb.

An appeal brought by the families elevated the case to the State Supreme Court. The stakes of the case drew intense interest from both sides of the gun debate, seeing in the court’s decision either an opportunity or a threat.

The state attorney general, gun violence prevention groups, and a statewide association of school superintendents wrote to the court in support of the families’ case. But the National Shooting Sports Foundation, an industry group that happens to be headquartered in Newtown, argued that the case was centered on “a tragedy of unimaginable proportions,” yet the lawsuit was trying to achieve “regulation through litigation.”

In a 4-3 ruling, the justices ruled that the case could move ahead based on the state law regarding unfair trade practices. Several months later, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for the case to continue, denying an appeal brought by Remington.

 

[toobfreak]

Their marketing campaign.

So Joe is liable for marketing himself as going to SMASH covid not the economy if elected?

Can we then hold Joe liable for the 600,000 deaths on his watch because of his false marketing?

Then there is the matter of the economy.

 

[g5000]

The US Supreme Court denied Remington's plea to dismiss the case, so it went forward.

Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed

The gun-maker had appealed to the highest federal court after the Connecticut Supreme Court allowed the lawsuit over the 2012 school massacre in Newtown, Conn., to go forward in March.

www.npr.org

In filings with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Sandy Hook families say Remington "published promotional materials that promised 'military-proven performance' for a 'mission-adaptable' shooter in need of the 'ultimate combat weapons system.' " They also accuse the company of fostering a "lone gunman" narrative as it promoted the Bushmaster, citing an ad that proclaimed, "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered."

 

[g5000]

Remington turned over thousands of documents.

And now those documents will be public record.

 

[toobfreak]

Better off suing them for being a dumbass.

Then you must be a bazillionaire.