Supreme Court to allow Sandy Hook parents to sue gun maker Remington

And so it begins

Racer Doug14 said:

Did the psycho that murdered all of those children actually purchase the rifle? I believe his mother, whom he also murdered, purchased the rifle. Then who knows what persuaded her to buy that maker and model?

Click to expand...

Yep, she purchased it, owned it, and locked it in her safe. He killed her to get at it.

Eta: reminded earlier in this thread here ...

tbmcdermott1 said:

What is most preposterous about the lawsuit is the rifle wasn't sold to Adam Lanza, it was his mother's. She owned the rifle he murders her then takes her rifle, so how will they explain that the rifle was purchased by a middle-aged woman? She doesn't quite fit the description of a young male.

Click to expand...

Racer Doug14 said:

Did the psycho that murdered all of those children actually purchase the rifle? I believe his mother, whom he also murdered, purchased the rifle. Then who knows what persuaded her to buy that maker and model?

Click to expand...

fidelity said:

Yep, she purchased it, owned it, and locked it in her safe. He killed her to get at it.

Eta: reminded earlier in this thread here ...

Click to expand...

tbmcdermott1 said:

What is most preposterous about the lawsuit is the rifle wasn't sold to Adam Lanza, it was his mother's. She owned the rifle he murders her then takes her rifle, so how will they explain that the rifle was purchased by a middle-aged woman? She doesn't quite fit the description of a young male.

Click to expand...

I am not sure why the fact that the shooter did not purchase the rifle matters. The case is about what the manufacturer chose to advertise and associate its product with. The claim is that the shooter chose the rifle because of this association.

From the Brief in Opposition to the Cert Petition

The complaint alleges that he chose the XM15-E2S “for its military and assaultive qualities, * * * in particular its efficiency in inflicting mass casualties,” and “because of its marketed association with the military.”

Click to expand...

I don't doubt that Remington associated the rifle with the military. What I have a problem with is the association between the military and inflicting mass casualties and murder. Neither of which are legal things to do in the military in the context of what is being alleged.

If this association is allowed to stand then just about any advertising could be a potential issue. Humans are animals so any hunting advertisement could be connected because of this.

jcutonilli said:

I am not sure why the fact that the shooter did not purchase the rifle matters. The case is about what the manufacturer chose to advertise and associate its product with. The claim is that the shooter chose the rifle because of this association.

From the Brief in Opposition to the Cert Petition


I don't doubt that Remington associated the rifle with the military. What I have a problem with is the association between the military and inflicting mass casualties and murder. Neither of which are legal things to do in the military in the context of what is being alleged.

If this association is allowed to stand then just about any advertising could be a potential issue. Humans are animals so any hunting advertisement could be connected because of this.

Click to expand...

These frauds constantly seek to identify and groom sympathetic victims and promptly propose a solution that accomplishes their true goal while doing nothing to mitigate the circumstances which caused the victim to suffer in the first place.

They aren’t dumb or deluded. This is very purposeful. If they ever accidentally solve a problem, it would reduce their ability to influence the next in their never ending series of ‘solutions’.

The Anarchist Cookbook and Jeep or ATV advertisements come to mind as examples of products whose marketing hasn’t open legal floodgates for their misuse. There are probably better ones.

The former (along with pornography depicting molestation, rape and torture) has been long held as a necessary evil required to preserve free speech as the most important of the super rights. Even if they incite people to murder or harm other people, their consumers are always responsible for their own actions. I’d be interested to know if the courts have ever heard or sided with victims of violence over free speech in a case. (I wonder how many people in US history have been convicted of inciting a riot?)

The later would seem to encourage the wonton destruction of endangered wildlife habitats and the ultra fragile eco source of the only drug ingredient that will save mankind. I think I saw that second one in a movie. Along with the imminent existential threat to mankind from spewing of scientifically proven, earth ending CO2. These people are marketing Armageddon! Of course people are injured and killed in off-roading accidents. If it wasn’t dangerous, it wouldn’t be fun.

Why do we allow vehicle ads with the disclaimer “professional driver on a closed course” ? Are those items being marketed only to professional drivers or people with access to closed courses? Aren’t people killed by reckless driving?

Just rambling this morning.

What about advertising alcoholic beverages at motor sport events. Especially the ones people drive to (all of them). Drunk driving kills lots of people. The just put small text print at the bottom that says “drink responsibly”..

Maybe the firearms industry just needs to add some text to their ads?

“Professional shooter on a closed course”

“Shoot responsibly”

“No humans or animals were harmed in the testing of these products”

A little rewording of this and Remington should be good to go...

I was listening to John Lott being interviewed re this case and scotus. Paraphrasing, he sees the scotus decline being really that it was too early in the process for scotus to get involved. From his brief analysis it sounds like the merits of the suit are weak and that this is essentially a suit to try to find some “smoking gun” Remington memos or the like in the discovery phase.

IMHO, it seems like scotus either knows this suit will die on its own or come back to them in due course.


https://crimeresearch.org/2019/11/o...intiffs-lawsuit-against-remington-go-forward/



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sundancer said:

I was listening to John Lott being interviewed re this case and scotus. Paraphrasing, he sees the scotus decline being really that it was too early in the process for scotus to get involved. From his brief analysis it sounds like the merits of the suit are weak and that this is essentially a suit to try to find some “smoking gun” Remington memos or the like in the discovery phase.

IMHO, it seems like scotus either knows this suit will die on its own or come back to them in due course.


https://crimeresearch.org/2019/11/o...intiffs-lawsuit-against-remington-go-forward/



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I still think it's BS now Remington has to spend money on defending this which will be passed onto us. They should of killed it right there