Sandy Hook Parents, Remington agree to $73 million settlement

[M14 Shooter]

lost bigley & the precedent has been set.

"Precedent" is set when a court rules on an issue.
There's no precedent set in a case settled out of court.
Please - try harder.

 

[M14 Shooter]

i didn't realize it was settled outa court -

Because you chose to remain ignorant of the issue at hand, and illustrate that ignorance in your post.
Well done.

 

[JoeB131]

The insurance companies made a business decision. The insurance companies had no horse in the race, no reason to fight / defend against the lawsuit on its merits. All they wanted to do was get out from under the financial burden of open-ended litigation of the lawsuit and (possible to likely) emotionally driven, jury awarded compensation to the plaintiffs, far exceeding the settlement.

Obviously, you've never had to try to get money out of an insurance company. They have armies of lawyers to fight these kinds of battles on retainer. If they gave up, it's because once they realized the "Crisis Actors" (joke on Dale Smith ) had access to their records, they were well and screwed. Except now we all have access to their internal memos.

Upon writing the checks and giving the corporate documents to the plaintiffs (from a company that no longer exists), the lawsuit is WITHDRAWN.

No entity was found legally responsible under the claims of the lawsuit -- there is no legal decision or agreement that the claims of the lawsuit were proven / sustained. After the requirements of the settlement are satisfied, the claims made in the suit, as legal arguments, evaporate.

Okay, if you really need to believe that. But there are 43,000 people who die of gun violence every year, and if this could be sued over, so could a lot of others...

In Connecticut, it's illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to possess a handgun. Lanza had a Glock 20SF handgun.

Connecticut already has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Please, pray tell, what "benign gun control measure" would've kept Lanza from obtaining that handgun? Furthermore, Connecticut does not allow private ownership of so-called "assault weapons" except by law enforcement officers. Given that's the case, how on earth did he ever get a hold of that Bushmaster?

The fact of that matter is that someone's who's determined enough can get pretty much whatever he wants. The sad reality is that laws only impact the law-abiding...

His mother was able to buy one. That's the point. She was able to buy one because Remington decided that crazy preppers were a key market, as they buy lots of guns and lots of ammo. They made sure that it was very easy to circumvent the law through gun show loopholes, out of state sellers and other tricks to make sure the crazies got their guns. And the thing was, this is what the internal memos would have shown.

Oh, back on ignore you go...

 

[JoeB131]

Moron...dying over a day later had nothing to do with his stroke...not going to the gym did him in....

The gun industry didn't pull the trigger you asshole.....and it is your party, the democrat party, the party created by two slave owners, that keeps releasing violent gun offenders, the ones who are doing almost all of the shooting...you and your party keep letting them out to shoot more people....

Uh, DickTiny, if I'm in a fight on Tuesday and I die on Wednesday, most sensible people would realize those two things are related.

Adam Lanza was never let go by a "Democratic Judge". We lock up 2 million people and arm ourselves with guns, and we are hte most dangerous advanced country in the world to live in.

The gun industry has no special protections you lying asshole....if they put out a defective product they can already be sued....

They put out a dangerous product and marketed it to dangerous people. Shit, we show more concern with TOYS than we do guns.

 

[Abatis]

Obviously, you've never had to try to get money out of an insurance company. They have armies of lawyers to fight these kinds of battles on retainer.

Exactly! Whose retainer were these lawyers on?

Remington is no more, Remington wasn't keeping the lawyers; it was the insurance companies paying for the legal defense against the lawsuit. But this wasn't a normal legal defense against a lawsuit; the insurance companies had no interest in defending Remington or trying to defeat the lawsuit's legal arguments.

The insurance companies' legal interest, their only reason for paying the "armies of lawyers" was to mitigate their exposure to a monetary settlement that THEY were on the hook for.

The settlement had nothing to do with the lawsuit's arguments or even Remington's actions.

If they gave up, it's because once they realized the [victim families] had access to their records, they were well and screwed.

From my understanding, those documents are a part of the settlement, to be surrendered upon closure; not something the plaintiffs had in their possession and were using for leverage.

Except now we all have access to their internal memos.

Maybe if they burn them in a barrel it will keep them warm for a while . . . Beyond that they are worthless.

Okay, if you really need to believe that.

Huh? The word "withdrawn" is in the announcement of the settlement; future appearances of the parties in court will finalize the specifics, ending with the suit being withdrawn:

But there are 43,000 people who die of gun violence every year, and if this could be sued over, so could a lot of others...

I've already explained why you are wrong. There is only one thing this settlement can be argued to do; that is to chill the insurance marketplace for gun companies.

But, as long as a state doesn't have an Unfair Trade Practices Act like
Connecticut does, with the language that can be exploited against the PLCCA like this suit did, on what grounds will your hypothetical suits be filed?

You need to understand that in this instance, in this particular suit testing the PLCCA's exception of immunity for wrongful marketing*, the right of action is created by the CT law and only that law, it does not exist at common law in all states.

*The law excepts:

(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including—​

​

(I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law with respect to the qualified product, or aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or​

​

(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18;​

 

[Canon Shooter]

His mother was able to buy one. That's the point. She was able to buy one because Remington decided that crazy preppers were a key market, as they buy lots of guns and lots of ammo. They made sure that it was very easy to circumvent the law through gun show loopholes, out of state sellers and other tricks to make sure the crazies got their guns. And the thing was, this is what the internal memos would have shown.

Did she buy the guns at a gun show from an out of state seller? Connecticut's laws are pretty harsh. I'd be surprised if such a purchase was legal...

Oh, back on ignore you go...

That's right, I forgot how big a whiny pussy you are...

 

[2aguy]

Uh, DickTiny, if I'm in a fight on Tuesday and I die on Wednesday, most sensible people would realize those two things are related.

Adam Lanza was never let go by a "Democratic Judge". We lock up 2 million people and arm ourselves with guns, and we are hte most dangerous advanced country in the world to live in.



They put out a dangerous product and marketed it to dangerous people. Shit, we show more concern with TOYS than we do guns.

View attachment 606455

Total killed by mass public shooters?

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

2021...6
2020....2

2019....10

2018... 12

Number murdered by criminals in 2019?

10,258......

That means, you idiot....that the democrat party judges and prosecutors, the people you vote for, the members of the political party created by slave owners, caused the majority of those 10,258 murders by releasing repeat gun offenders over and over again......

So you, trying to use mass public shootings to make your point is just fucking stupid.....

 

[JoeB131]

Exactly! Whose retainer were these lawyers on?

Remington is no more, Remington wasn't keeping the lawyers; it was the insurance companies paying for the legal defense against the lawsuit. But this wasn't a normal legal defense against a lawsuit; the insurance companies had no interest in defending Remington or trying to defeat the lawsuit's legal arguments.

The insurance companies' legal interest, their only reason for paying the "armies of lawyers" was to mitigate their exposure to a monetary settlement that THEY were on the hook for.

The settlement had nothing to do with the lawsuit's arguments or even Remington's actions.

Uh, they paid out 73 million dollars... because they knew if this ever got in front of a jury, they'd be screwed.

From my understanding, those documents are a part of the settlement, to be surrendered upon closure; not something the plaintiffs had in their possession and were using for leverage.

Actually, more like they got them during discovery. Which is why they settled.

Maybe if they burn them in a barrel it will keep them warm for a while . . . Beyond that they are worthless.

Except for showing the recklessness of the gun industry.

Huh? The word "withdrawn" is in the announcement of the settlement; future appearances of the parties in court will finalize the specifics, ending with the suit being withdrawn:

I've already explained why you are wrong. There is only one thing this settlement can be argued to do; that is to chill the insurance marketplace for gun companies.

Works for me. If gunmakers can't get insurance, they can't get business loans to keep operating. Unless they change their business practices.

But, as long as a state doesn't have an Unfair Trade Practices Act like
Connecticut does, with the language that can be exploited against the PLCCA like this suit did, on what grounds will your hypothetical suits be filed?

You need to understand that in this instance, in this particular suit testing the PLCCA's exception of immunity for wrongful marketing*, the right of action is created by the CT law and only that law, it does not exist at common law in all states.

It doesn't have to exist in all states. Just a few states where some of the 43,000 gun deaths happen.

 

[JoeB131]

Total killed by mass public shooters?

List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

703 in 2021

 

[Canon Shooter]

List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"As of December 2021, 693 (of which 303 resulted in zero deaths) fit the Mass Shooting Tracker project criterion, leaving 703 people dead and 2,842 injured, for a total of 3,545 total victims, some including the shooter(s)."

By comparison, there were 614 mass shootings in 2020, resulting in 446 deaths and 2,515 injuries, for a total of 3,061 victims.

I blame Biden...

 

[Abatis]

Uh, they paid out 73 million dollars... because they knew if this ever got in front of a jury, they'd be screwed.

I've said that repeatedly, e.g.,:

"All they wanted to do was get out from under the financial burden of open-ended litigation of the lawsuit and (possible to likely) emotionally driven, jury awarded compensation to the plaintiffs, far exceeding the settlement."​

​

Actually, more like they got them during discovery. Which is why they settled.

Since there was no trial how could the plaintiffs have received any discovery? The entire legal battle, including the CT supreme court decision preceding the settlement, was to decide IF there would be a trial.

Except for showing the recklessness of the gun industry.

Which will be useless . . . Did the negligence of Ford putting the gas tank in the cab, behind the seat of F150's, burning people to death, help people suing Chevrolet or Toyota or Kia for gas tank caused wrongful deaths?

You are arguing a theory that has never been heard, let alone decided upon in any court. You believe the lawsuit's theory might be proven in the corporate records of a company that a) no longer exists and b) no one remains to speak for, or defend their interests . . . To what end? Do you think Remington's records will be introduced as evidence in a lawsuit against another company for their actions?

You don't even understand how goofy your main argument is; that you want to apply a theory that's never been argued or proven, to hold other companies liable citing claims against Remington for 'proximate cause' damages that were never proven.

Works for me. If gunmakers can't get insurance, they can't get business loans to keep operating. Unless they change their business practices.

Well, the simple cure for it would be a disclaimer on any gun advertisement that the maker, distributor and retail seller does not endorse or promote any illegal or irresponsible use. Kind of like a car commercial showing a car being driven recklessly (under any law for a public road in the USA) and then the script rolls, "professional driver on a closed course, do not attempt" . . .

It doesn't have to exist in all states. Just a few states where some of the 43,000 gun deaths happen.

Saying that proves you have no knowledge of the fundamental principles of law, especially applied to the the particulars of this case. This case was allowed to advance ONLY because of the novel interpretation of CT's law in the suit.

No common law right to action exists for the reasoning offered in this case. The right to action is created by the CT law being applied to the PLCCA's exemptions . . . In particular allowing suits to be brought if the, "manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm" . . .

No new general rule for the nation that carves out of the PLCCA a new path to sue was created by this settlement. Add in that the lawsuit will be withdrawn, that the suit will no longer exist and and its arguments will evaporate, means you are trying to catch smoke in a bucket.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I've said that repeatedly, e.g.,:

"All they wanted to do was get out from under the financial burden of open-ended litigation of the lawsuit and (possible to likely) emotionally driven, jury awarded compensation to the plaintiffs, far exceeding the settlement."​

It is impossible to explain things to people who refuse to understand.

 

[Abatis]

It is impossible to explain things to people who refuse to understand.

I've enjoyed debating gun rights vs gun control for over 30 years. My replies to a person like JoeB131 are rarely directed to them and are never made with any expectation that I would convince them of anything.

I quote their statements and arguments the way I do to deconstruct them and I rebut / refute / destroy them precisely point by point, to show to people interested in the topic that everything anti-gun rights people say is wrong or a least emotional drivel, unconnected to any legal principle.

I post that way because gun-control / gun rights threads on political boards are among the more heavily read, they always lead in page views (on boards that display that).

I know that my technique looks like I give them too much respect, but really my respect is for the interested people reading this topic who may not be ideologues, those that just want (need) to read the best answer and the best information. We gun rights posters should hold ourselves to a higher standard, to refrain from the petty because the larger real debate (constitutional government) is too damn important.

I do lose my patience sometimes but I can't really get mad at an anti-gunner's purposeful obtuseness and refusal to understand. They are some of the most dishonest people in political discussion; I have to remind myself that just exposing how duplicitous they and their arguments are is the ultimate objective.

I can't take their repetition of idiocy and trolling comments personally; exposing them as the policy charlatans they are is its own reward.

.

 

[Abatis]

"As of December 2021, 693 (of which 303 resulted in zero deaths) fit the Mass Shooting Tracker project criterion, leaving 703 people dead and 2,842 injured, for a total of 3,545 total victims, some including the shooter(s)."

By comparison, there were 614 mass shootings in 2020, resulting in 446 deaths and 2,515 injuries, for a total of 3,061 victims.

I blame Biden...

The criteria used, --4 or more people shot-- in one incident is a big net that catches a lot of incidents that are just the everyday violence that happens a few times a week where most shootings happen and are the kind of shootings one doesn't really pay much attention to, except that they lead the local news in just about any large city.

They are the drug corner drive-by's, the drug house rip squads, retaliation shootings at candlelight vigils for other shooting victims and just general mayhem of thug life.

In other words, the --4 or more people shot-- is great for the DEMedia to throw out histrionic numbers as you cite above, but a close examination destroys their "Whitey on a rampage" narrative. These "mass shootings" are what most shooting are, inner-city young Black guys shooting other inner-city young Black guys over stupid shit that nobody but inner-city young Black guys care about.

Mass shooting database

www.mass-shootings.info

And the ultimate truth is, there ain't a gun control law that will EVER slow that down because it is a rot in culture that celebrates the criminal lifestyle and has zero respect for life . . .

And yes, that is directly attributable to leftist / Progressive / Democrat policies so yes, I too blame Joe Xiden.

.

 

[Abatis]

703 in 2021

Here is a collage of photos of every person convicted, charged or wanted in connection with the shooting of 4+ people or who were killed or killed themselves before they could be charged in 2021.

There is a clickable mirror of this image that shows the particulars of each shooter/shooting.

Mass shooting database

www.mass-shootings.info

 

[2aguy]

List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

703 in 2021

Wrong, dipshit.....they include gang members shooting each other over gang territory, drugs, and girlfriends.....those are not mass public shootings in any sense of the meaning of the term....

A mass public shooting is when an individual or individuals enter a public space to murder random strangers........and that was 6 times in 2021...out of over 330 million Americans..

You can't stampede Americans into giving up their Right to guns......especially now with your buddy putin and Ukraine right in front of everyone....with 6 mass public shootings. out of 330 million people.......

So, you lie....and add gang members in democrat party controlled cities where they keep releasing the shooters over and over again so they can keep shooting people, to increase your fake number....

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

2021...6
2020....2

2019....10

2018... 12

2017: 11 ( 5 according to the old standard)

2016....6

2015....4 ( obama's new standard....7)

2014....2 (4)

2013....5

2012....7

2011....3

2010....1

2009....4

2008....3

2007....4

2006....3

2005...2

2004....1

2003...1

2002 not listed so more than likely 0

2001....1

2000....1

1999....5

1998...3

1997....2

1996....1

1995...1

1994...1

1993...4

1992...2

1991...3

1990...1

1989...2

1988....1

1987...1

1986...1

1985... not listed so probably 0

1984...2

1983...not listed so probably 0

1982...1
US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation




Deaths in actual mass public shootings... ( someone do the math and tell us what percent of 10,235 the number 73 equals.....)

Deer kill 200 people a year.....

Lawn mowers between 90-100 people a year....

Ladders 300 people a year....

bathtubs 350 people a year...

Cars killed over 39,000 people in 2019...


Total number of people killed in mass public shootings by year...


2021...43
2020....5
2019....73
2018.....93
2017........117
2016......71
2015......37
2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7
1999...42
1998...14
1997...9
1996...6
1995...6
1994....5
1993...23
1992...9
1991...35
1990...10
1989...15
1988...7
1987...6
1986...15
1985...(none listed)
1984...28
1983 (none listed)
1982...8

Deer kill 200 people a year.....

Lawn mowers between 90-100 people a year....

Ladders 300 people a year....

bathtubs 350 people a year...

 

[2aguy]

"As of December 2021, 693 (of which 303 resulted in zero deaths) fit the Mass Shooting Tracker project criterion, leaving 703 people dead and 2,842 injured, for a total of 3,545 total victims, some including the shooter(s)."

By comparison, there were 614 mass shootings in 2020, resulting in 446 deaths and 2,515 injuries, for a total of 3,061 victims.

I blame Biden...

And the Mass shooting tracker is wrong....they mix criminals shooting each other with individuals who target random strangers...the two are not the same, but if they don't mix up the two categories...you get these actual results...

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

2021...6
2020....2

2019....10

2018... 12

2017: 11 ( 5 according to the old standard)

2016....6

2015....4 ( obama's new standard....7)

2014....2 (4)

2013....5

2012....7

2011....3

2010....1

2009....4

2008....3

2007....4

2006....3

2005...2

2004....1

2003...1

2002 not listed so more than likely 0

2001....1

2000....1

1999....5

1998...3

1997....2

1996....1

1995...1

1994...1

1993...4

1992...2

1991...3

1990...1

1989...2

1988....1

1987...1

1986...1

1985... not listed so probably 0

1984...2

1983...not listed so probably 0

1982...1
US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation




Deaths in actual mass public shootings... ( someone do the math and tell us what percent of 10,235 the number 73 equals.....)

Deer kill 200 people a year.....

Lawn mowers between 90-100 people a year....

Ladders 300 people a year....

bathtubs 350 people a year...

Cars killed over 39,000 people in 2019...


Total number of people killed in mass public shootings by year...


2021...43
2020....5
2019....73
2018.....93
2017........117
2016......71
2015......37
2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7
1999...42
1998...14
1997...9
1996...6
1995...6
1994....5
1993...23
1992...9
1991...35
1990...10
1989...15
1988...7
1987...6
1986...15
1985...(none listed)
1984...28
1983 (none listed)
1982...8

Deer kill 200 people a year.....

Lawn mowers between 90-100 people a year....

Ladders 300 people a year....

bathtubs 350 people a year...

 

[2aguy]

It is impossible to explain things to people who refuse to understand.

He understands...he just doesn't care...he is a racist and a fascist.....he wants people disarmed so they can't defend themselves against him and his leftist goon squads...

 

[2aguy]

I've enjoyed debating gun rights vs gun control for over 30 years. My replies to a person like JoeB131 are rarely directed to them and are never made with any expectation that I would convince them of anything.

I quote their statements and arguments the way I do to deconstruct them and I rebut / refute / destroy them precisely point by point, to show to people interested in the topic that everything anti-gun rights people say is wrong or a least emotional drivel, unconnected to any legal principle.

I post that way because gun-control / gun rights threads on political boards are among the more heavily read, they always lead in page views (on boards that display that).

I know that my technique looks like I give them too much respect, but really my respect is for the interested people reading this topic who may not be ideologues, those that just want (need) to read the best answer and the best information. We gun rights posters should hold ourselves to a higher standard, to refrain from the petty because the larger real debate (constitutional government) is too damn important.

I do lose my patience sometimes but I can't really get mad at an anti-gunner's purposeful obtuseness and refusal to understand. They are some of the most dishonest people in political discussion; I have to remind myself that just exposing how duplicitous they and their arguments are is the ultimate objective.

I can't take their repetition of idiocy and trolling comments personally; exposing them as the policy charlatans they are is its own reward.

.

Exactly....this is why I engage this lunatics as well...

 

[JoeB131]

I've said that repeatedly, e.g.,:

Yawn... your argument ignores the fact that Remington raised the white flag.

Which will be useless . . . Did the negligence of Ford putting the gas tank in the cab, behind the seat of F150's, burning people to death, help people suing Chevrolet or Toyota or Kia for gas tank caused wrongful deaths?

Since the other gun makers engage in the same reckeless behavior... um, yeah, the other gun makers are screwed.

Well, the simple cure for it would be a disclaimer on any gun advertisement that the maker, distributor and retail seller does not endorse or promote any illegal or irresponsible use. Kind of like a car commercial showing a car being driven recklessly (under any law for a public road in the USA) and then the script rolls, "professional driver on a closed course, do not attempt" . . .

Except the gun makers market specifically to the crazies, that's kind of the point. There's really no market for the guy who bought a gun once because he was nervous during a crime spike, put it in the closet and forgot about it.

The real money to be made is marketing to the crazies...

Come on, tell us true, how many guns do you own?

Saying that proves you have no knowledge of the fundamental principles of law, especially applied to the the particulars of this case. This case was allowed to advance ONLY because of the novel interpretation of CT's law in the suit.

Okay, didn't you clowns say that this would never get to a settlement?