Sandy Hook Parents, Remington agree to $73 million settlement

[martybegan]

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.

Another end run attempt around the Constitution.

Lesson to gun manufacturers, move out of Blue States.

 

[Canon Shooter]

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

Please post links to said Remington advertising.

Thanks so much...

 

[westwall]

Interesting.
Why can't Ford be held liable when some drunk guy steals a Mustang and runs a school bus over a cliff?

Ummm, I think they can now. I am right now looking for law firms using similar marketing. I plan on going after them.

 

[g5000]

Interesting.
Why can't Ford be held liable when some drunk guy steals a Mustang and runs a school bus over a cliff?

 

[bodecea]

That's an absolutely disgusting outcome...

Not as disgusting as a school of elementary kids getting shot up and most of America could give a rat's patootie.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Lol, yea right.

Truth hurts, eh?

 

[Auld Phart]

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

Sandy Hook families agree to $73 million settlement with gunmaker Remington

Families of nine victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre agreed Tuesday to a $73 million settlement with gun manufacturer Remington.

www.usatoday.com

Travesty of justice.

 

[martybegan]

Not as disgusting as a school of elementary kids getting shot up and most of America could give a rat's patootie.

How about as disgusting as only caring when non inner city kids are the ones getting shot?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Sounds like just about every sports car advertisement every published.
And yet, Ford, Chevy, etc aren't liable when some drunk guy steals one and kills a bunch of people with it.
Why?

 

[westwall]

Proving what a complete moron you truly are.

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

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.

Interesting, considering the firearm belonged to his mother.

Should have been laughed out of court.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Interesting, considering the firearm belonged to his mother.

And stole it, after killing her.

 

[bodecea]

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

Go right ahead. And make sure you compare you falling down to an Elementary school full of children getting slaughtered.

 

[JLW]

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

Thank you for the link. SCOTUS denied Cert. That is not to say the current court would have found for the families or that the Court would not have found the case was barred under the 2nd amendment. The opposition brief was very well written. It explains in part why Remington settled.

 

[Likkmee]

Interesting.
Why can't Ford be held liable when some drunk guy steals a Mustang and runs a school bus over a cliff?

Maybe tomorrow. Mustang thief needs lawyer to declare Ford antisementickle

 

[odanny]

Sounds like just about every sports car advertisement every published.
And yet, Ford, Chevy, etc aren't liable when some drunk guy steals one and kills a bunch of people with it.
Why?

Maybe you need a lawyer.

 

[Flash]

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

Sandy Hook families agree to $73 million settlement with gunmaker Remington

Families of nine victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre agreed Tuesday to a $73 million settlement with gun manufacturer Remington.

www.usatoday.com

This fucking ridiculous and never should have been settled.

A woman legitimately bought a legal firearm for her protection and then it was stolen and then used in a crime.

Not the fault of the gun maker. Not the fault of the legal owner.

The fault completely in the hands of the little shithead that used it illegally.

Just is nothing more than filthy Libtard bullshit. Dispicable!

 

[Flash]

This really not a victory for the despicable shitheads that brought the suit.

Remington declared bankruptcy last year.

Any settlement would be to protect the board of directors - and odds are there are not any funds within the company to pay off the settlement, so it is mostly a paper loss, and possibly a real victory for Remington.

 

[JLW]

This really not a victory for the despicable shitheads that brought the suit.

Remington declared bankruptcy last year.

Any settlement would be to protect the board of directors - and odds are there are not any funds within the company to pay off the settlement, so it is mostly a paper loss, and possibly a real victory for Remington.

Calling the parents of murdered children "despicable shitheads" is as low as you can get.

 

[Mac-7]

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

If they donate all the money to childrens cancer hospitals they wont look so greedy