https://www.theblaze.com/news/remington-settles-with-sandy-hook-parents?utm_source=theblaze-7DayTrendingTest&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The%20Blaze%20PM%20Trending%202022-02-15&utm_term=ACTIVE%20LIST%20-%207%20Day%20Engagement
The above link is to a Blaze article reporting on the 73 million dollar settlement Remington Arms paid to nine families of Sandy Hook murder victims, their lives taken...not by Remington...by Adam Lanza back on Dec. 14, 2012. He murdered a total of 26 people that day at the school, and his mother, who legally owned the weapons he took with him to do the deed.
I find the settlement to be incredibly problematic, especially since a lawyer for the families now proudly asserts this settlement can lead to more easily putting the arm on other firearms manufacturers should anyone abuse their products. And this is what makes this settlement so wrong. Remington had nothing to do with the murders of those people. Not one thing. They had no contact with Lanza. They did not conspire with him in any way to murder anyone. In fact, they did not sell the weapon to Lanza. They didn't even sell it to his mother, so far as I've been able to ascertain, who owned all the weapons the bastard used that day. And according to an article from the New York Times which appeared three days after the murders, it seems she bought the weapons for herself, a gun enthusiast in a community of gun enthusiasts, with nothing stating she intended them for Adam, who was mental.
The suit against Remington on behalf of the families suggested they marketed their products in a manner which somehow provokes consumers to arm up and shoot up schools or some shit. And of course, they refer to the rifle as a "weapon of war", despite the fact that actual "weapons of war"...otherwise known as the guns the military uses, are fully automatic, while the civilian version is semi-automatic, as are so many not referred to as "weapons of war" or the perennial favorite, "assault weapon". (One's fists are assault weapons)
In any case, that anyone would dare stick their hands in Remington's pockets over this mass murder is about the most unjust attack on a company's rights as any one could imagine. As noted above, the company had absolutely no involvement whatsoever. They are innocent of any charge against them in connection with the murders. That being painfully, blatantly and absolutely obvious, on what basis could they have lost a lawsuit other than due to money-hungry, gun-grabbing lawyers and judges not acting like honest Americans? Adam Lanza stole the guns from his murdered mother. How is that Remington's fault?
In various comments sections after articles about this travesty of justice, some mention suing auto manufacturers every time an accident involving one of their products occurs. But that's not an apples to apples analogy. This is...
On August 17th, 2017, James Alex Fields, Jr. drove his car into a crowd of people murdering one person and injuring 35. Heather Danielle Heyer died. The weapon used was Fields' 2010 Dodge Challenger. Chrysler Motors is just as responsible for the death of Heather Heyer as Remington is for the 27 murdered by Adam Lanza.
On Nov. 21, 2021, Darrell E. Brooks drove his 2010 Ford Escape into the Christmas parade in Waukesha, Wisconsin, killing five people and wounding 48 others. Ford Motor Co. is just as responsible for those deaths as Remington Arms is for Sandy Hook.
As I mentioned, the lawyers who squeezed Remington believes their success will lead to other pots of gold for them. I hope the next victim of these pigs refuses to give in and forces the judge to rule. If they should lose, I hope they appeal. If they lose the appeal, I hope they take it to the Supremes. There's no way these types of cases should even be heard in an American court of law. I feel for the victims' families. This is not the way to go.
5 comments:
This is disturbing. The fact that a company that produces an inanimate object can be held liable for it's use by someone who obtained it illegally, opens all sorts of doors. If this is taken to it's logical conclusion, these families could sue any and all manufacturers of firearms, for the actions of someone misusing any firearm.
This has little to do with right or wrong or actual responsibility, but with looking for the deepest pockets.
Ugh, what a stunningly bad precedent. Agreed with you on all counts. We need more guns, not less.
SCOTUS is really to blame because they refused to accept an appeal.
The link below indicates that the lawyers did not establish in any way just how the marketing of these weapons promoted or encouraged Lanza's actions.
https://amgreatness.com/2022/02/16/sandy-hook-families-settle-with-remington-arms-to-the-tune-of-73-million/
It states...
"The Connecticut court’s justification was that the law does “not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior,” without citing any evidence of what “violent behavior” was in any of the marketing."
One would think that should be established and confirmed before a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could be rendered. The jackleg lawyer, Josh Koskoff, goes on to say...
"These nine families have shared a single goal from the very beginning: to do whatever they could to help prevent the next Sandy Hook. It is hard to imagine an outcome that better accomplishes that goal."
What an absolutely absurd statement! I can imagine, and have actually provided examples in previous posts, of far better ways to prevent the next Sandy Hook, none of which includes holding innocent people responsible.
"One of the plaintiffs, Nicole Hockley, claimed that “today is a day of accountability for an industry that has thus far enjoyed operating with immunity and impunity. And for this I am grateful.”"
Grateful that manufacturers might be denied immunity from being held responsible for how total strangers misused their products? These are not serious people regardless of how aggrieved they may be. It proves the adage that when emotion goes up, intelligence goes down.
I truly hope there is some way to reverse this decision if Remington did not want to pay out this money, but the Supreme's didn't take this case for some reason. I'd like to know why.
There are three reasons why the Supremes won't hear a case (from https://www.foxessays.com/why-does-the-supreme-court-refuse-to-hear-certain-cases/):
1. Agreement with the lower court decision
The court could easily find nothing wrong with the lower court’s decision. Also, the lower court may be in agreement with the Supreme Court’s legal and political beliefs or philosophy.
I can't accept either as a possibility for not hearing Remington's appeal. I even have a hard time believing Roberts would agree with the lower court, and I highly doubt the lower court is aligned with the general belief or philosophy of the SCOTUS, even with morons like Sotomayor being among them. There's no way Thomas or Allito would agree Remington is liable. --Art
2. Issue not significant enough to warrant Supreme Court intervention
Every year, litigants appeal or file over 7,000 cases with the Supreme Court. The court eventually accepts approximately 100. Of course, the court will only accept those cases with significant legal, societal, or political consequences.
This too, doesn't seem likely. However, with that amount of cases filed on average every year, their docket may have been full already. I don't know how soon they decide on how many cases to actually litigate, or if a new filing may be regarded as important enough to bump another off the schedule. But we're talking about holding liable a defendant who had no part in a crime whatsoever, so how is that not important enough to warrant their intervention? --Art
3. Court not ready to hear issue
Some legal issues need time to season. For example, civil rights cases would have met great resistance prior to the 1950s.
This is the strongest possibility, though again, the notion of holding an innocent party liable for that in which that party played absolutely no role doesn't seem ambiguous. Indeed, it seems that which needs to be nipped in the bud. An incredibly obvious injustice. At the same time, other arms manufacturers may likely be preparing for the eventuality some shyster might be planning more evil. A second case may indeed compel more attention from the Supremes. It damned well better! --Art
Post a Comment