On Tuesday, the families of nine children killed in the Sandy Hook mass shooting settled with Remington Arms, receiving a collective total of $73 million in compensation from the gun manufacturer.
As Insider reports, Remington was targeted by the families of the 2012 shooting due to the fact that one of the guns used in the attack, a Bushmaster rifle, was manufactured by Remington. The company was not sued by families until 2014, two years after the attack.
The basis for the lawsuit was that Remington marketed its rifle in such a way that it became appealing as a weapon of choice for the shooter, Adam Lanza, who committed suicide after he killed 27 people at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Twenty of his victims were children, while six were staff members at the school; he had earlier killed his own mother at their home before heading to the school.
Following the settlement, several of the plaintiffs and their lawyers expressed explicitly anti-gun sentiments in their public statements. 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.” She also described the settlement as a “crack” in “the gun industry’s impenetrable armor.”
Josh Koskoff, the attorney for the coalition of families, similarly claimed that the ruling was proof that “the gun industry’s protection is not bulletproof.” Koskoff added that the settlement not only included the financial compensation, but the sharing of “hundreds of thousands of documents” detailing Remington’s internal marketing strategy as it related to that particular firearm.
Remington tried to argue that it was protected under the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but the Connecticut Supreme Court allowed the lawsuit to proceed. 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.
Remington’s attempts to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States were denied when the high court declined to...
Read More HERE
10 comments:
That is an abomination and a travesty of justice. The shooter and he alone is responsible. That's like suing Ford because the dude that ran over the Christmas parade decided to by an Explorer. Insane.
At least this "settlement" will not have judicial precedents set. Such a shame that we seem to be in such a hurry to completely destroy what used to be a such fine country. I'm an old fart that will be lucky to have a decade left on this earth. The way things seem to be going and unless you make an effort to stop the insanity, you younger ones will be joining me sooner than you think.
I guess I need to explain that the insanity is the effort to take away our God given right to self protection by bankrupting the arms manufacturers.
Remington is out of their minds.
They just ended firearms in America, for the average American. They did it on purpose.
Guy is drinking Jack Daniels at home, decides he needed another 5th to finish out the night, gets in his Ford F350 Super Duty, and runs it right over top of my Toyota Prius (kidding I would never own that) carrying my wife and three small children, does this now mean I get to sue Jack Daniels for making a product that produces intoxication all the while advertising to the male ego? And maybe I get to sue Ford also, the F350 is advertised as a beast all men want to drive. And lets not forget the liquor store the guy bought the original 5th of Jack from, they could have stopped him, they could have suggested he go to counseling. I know I know but just because that bottle Jack was sitting on the shelf for 3 years in his den the sales guy at the liquor store three years ago should have anticipated this horrific event!
Who was Remingtons lawyer? Remington is in Bankruptcy and legal vultures are feasting on its guts.
Someone agreed to this, it wasnt a judgement.
Big pharma here we come
So if this is legal on Firearms, which is a national right, imagine doing the same to every auto maker when a person caused a car wreck that kills people and there was no vehicle reason only the car driver. Maybe the car driver was drunk, so they sue the maker of the alcohol. Lawyers are open now.
Drop in the bucket and the lawyers will get most.
Post a Comment