- Dec 27, 2012
- 30,215
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?
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.
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?
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 ...
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.
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.”
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.
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