It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Families of victims of Sandy Hook shooting sue gun maker

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 03:53 AM
link   


The families of nine of the 26 people killed and a teacher wounded two years ago at the Sandy Hook Elementary School filed a lawsuit Monday against the manufacturer, distributor and seller of the rifle used in the shooting.

The negligence and wrongful death lawsuit, filed in Bridgeport Superior Court, asserts that the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle should not have been made publicly available because it was designed for military use and is unsuited for hunting or home defence.

Families of victims of Sandy Hook shooting sue gun maker

So now the weapon manufacturer is responsible for something that they didn't condone at all? I guess if I ever get stabbed I can be an opportunist and sue the knife manufacturer. I felt bad for these families when this first happened, but now I've lost a great deal of respect for them, as it's pretty obvious that they just want to profit from their own tragedy. It's not like the gun company actually phoned that little autistic nerd Adam and told him to go commit a public shooting. They are in no way responsible for any of this.

It's time to be an adult and accept that tragedy doesn't always mean there will be a cash payout to pacify you.




posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 04:12 AM
link   
If it works it'll pretty much be open days for claims against pretty much every manufacturer of anything such as car manufacturers for deadly accidents and i'd hate to be in the big pharma industry when you cannot just sue the doc for the wrong pills but them for making them in the first place

solid platinum rolls royces for the lawyers all round in that case



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 04:27 AM
link   
it's a desperate attempt at somekind of justice.
Gun regulation in america is basically euql to drawing a picture of Muhammad, so you know that ain't gonna happen.
i find it laughable, the manufactor is not responsable for how you use their product.
A while back i remember someone choking his "friend"with the cord of an xbox controller...should the parents sue microsoft? (is that hwy the new controllers are wireless? hmmm)
But again. They are just trying to find a way to make sure this stuff doesn't hapen in the future, i guess their heart is in the right place.
And since a small group of idiots managed to ban GTA5 from Target, you never know what might happen in oversensitive america!



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 04:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Xaphan

Just another case of the legal system not working, corrupted and is past repair

Can the parents of kids killed by Drones also sue for compensation or do we have one law for one and another for everyone else.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 04:33 AM
link   


The negligence and wrongful death lawsuit, filed in Bridgeport Superior Court, asserts that the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle should not have been made publicly available because it was designed for military use and is unsuited for hunting or home defence.


And a Mossberg 590A1 isn't? How do you try to regulate one and not the others? Is this an opening salvo into gun confiscation as a direct catalyst of Sandy Hook? I suppose it was best to wait a few years so the average person doesn't suspect anything wonky.

Besides the only way this could really get traction was if "something" were to "happen" while this was going through the court system. You know, kinda how rappers get arrested just before their album drops........ratings.

edit on 16-12-2014 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 05:17 AM
link   
This lawsuit is completely wrong. A manufacture, and dealer can not be held accountable for actions committed by the purchaser of a product. In this case a semi automatic rifle.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 05:57 AM
link   
This kind of suit is outrageous. It's like an over weight person suing a spoon and fork manufacturer. They have no control over how something is used and can't be held responsible for acts of lunacy.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 06:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
it's a desperate attempt at somekind of justice.

Partially, yes. They are probably feeling that they got screwed out of justice because the assailant killed himself, so he obviously can't be held accountable, as he no longer exists in any form. They probably feel short changed without having any closure, so they need somebody to pick on. Doesn't matter who it is. They just need to point the finger somewhere.

But I think part of this is also a cash grab, and if that's the case, this is really sick.
edit on 16-12-2014 by Xaphan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Your hammer smashed my damn THUMB! How DARE you?!?

edit on 16-12-2014 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Can the people who were injured in the Boston Marathon bombing sue the pressure cooker manufacturers? What about the backpack manufacturers? Can they sue the local, state, and federal governments for having inadequate security measures?

This is just as ridiculous. The sad thing is, it'll get settled out of court for a substantial sum.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Xaphan

There is no more legal support for a case against the manufacturer of the Bushmaster AR-15 for what happened at Sandy Hook, than there is against the producers of alcoholic beverages. People die every day because of drink driving incidents, drunken brawls, liver disease bought on by excessive consumption, drunken accidents in peoples yards, death by drunken misadventure on camping trips. By the same measure, there can be no legitimate case against the companies which are responsible for the production of the various fast food snacks favoured by those who prefer to eat to excess, causing all manner of internal complications, and deaths, and God knows what else.

The key thing here is personal responsibility. I could go out tomorrow, buy a hammer, and decide to clobber as many people to death as possible, in a 24 hour period. To be quite honest, I think I could take out far more than 26 people using a hammer in that time. However, doing so would not make the manufacturer, nor the retailer of that hammer responsible for the effects of my actions toward the victims. Those deaths would be on me. The same applies to the manufacturers of firearms. They are not responsible for the behaviour of those who purchase their products, nor are they responsible for ensuring that people who are mentally unsuitable to own a weapon of some sort, cannot gain access to one once that firearm has left their ownership by way of being purchased.

It is the responsibility of gun owners to properly secure their firearms in such a way as to prevent them from being accessed by those who should not have them, and it is the governments responsibility to ensure that those members of society who have lost their grip on reality thoroughly enough to justify the sort of acts committed at Sandy Hook, are not allowed to be abroad in society. In short, the answer here is not to sue the weapons manufacturer, but to sue the government of the area from which the perpetrator came, for failure to secure any and all persons who have a psychiatric condition which renders them a threat to the public.

Any person who would consider discharging ANY firearm with the intent of murdering a person, or people, especially to the degree we are talking about, should have been institutionalised before they ever got a chance to gain access to a fire arm, no matter whether that be a pistol, a sub-machine gun, a shotgun, or a rifle of any kind. The reason I say that, is that someone who is determined to kill people, lots of people, will find a way with the contents of their kitchen cupboards, or a hardware store, and are just as dangerous without a gun as with one.

Once again, the guns are not the problem, the people who make the guns are not the problem. These things are nothing more than simple mechanisms, no more dangerous in and of themselves than the inner workings of a clock, or a door lock, or a vehicle engine. The responsibility for every mass shooting that has ever taken place lies squarely upon the shoulders of the shooter, and on the shoulders of those who failed to remove those whose psychological problems render them incapable of interacting with society properly, to a facility at which they could either be treated, or at least kept away from the innocent people they would otherwise wish to destroy!



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 07:34 AM
link   
I feel terrible for these families, but a law suit will not bring back their children. I hope they can heal and find peace from the horror they have experienced. I cannot imagine what it's like.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 07:38 AM
link   
If this goes through (which I doubt) it will set a new presadence on gun owners them selves. He didn't buy or own the fire arm, he stole it and killed the real owner. So what's not stopping victims from other violent crimes from sueing or seeking criminal actions against the owners of stollen fire arms.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 07:48 AM
link   
At least 17 of the 26 families have some sense, so at least we can walk away with that morsel of sanity.

People who do lawsuits and rallies and protests and TV shows where they scream about how the AR15 isn't suitable for this or that are really airing out their dirty ignorance for all to see. I could use the iron (well, injection-molded plastic) sights to kill a deer with .223 ammo just as easily as I could with a bolt-action rifle and scope combo of the same caliber.

Why do people espouse ignorance and then run to the top of the village hill and scream about it at the top of their lungs? They've had plenty of time to research and understand these weapons--just because nine of the families don't get it doesn't mean jack sh*t, other than it speaks negatively on their ability to seek out and comprehend easily available information.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 08:07 AM
link   
We should watch this very carefully. It is goes through, it will open a legal nightmare and a can of worms that will be a nightmare on all. In short what can thus be used from such a ruling goes to more deeper core issues and ultimately exploited by different groups.
Personally I don’t think it will go anywhere, as they would have to prove in court, that the gun manufacture sold such to be used against them, holding them equally responsible for the actions of Adam Lanza. And the argument will be, that the gun was legally sold to Ms. Lanza, Adam’s mother, and that Adam took said weapon.


Can you think of any other group that would use this in a way what could cause more problems far more reaching in the USA?



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
Once again, the guns are not the problem, the people who make the guns are not the problem. These things are nothing more than simple mechanisms, no more dangerous in and of themselves than the inner workings of a clock, or a door lock, or a vehicle engine. The responsibility for every mass shooting that has ever taken place lies squarely upon the shoulders of the shooter, and on the shoulders of those who failed to remove those whose psychological problems render them incapable of interacting with society properly, to a facility at which they could either be treated, or at least kept away from the innocent people they would otherwise wish to destroy!





posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Xaphan

I have an imaginary family member that was snuffed out by a Peterbuilt semi-truck carrying a load of toilet paper. Can I sue the truck builder because the minacial driver, in a fit of rage smashed my fourth-cousin to pieces?

I clearly understand the loss those people suffered, but doesn't the blame game for money have to stop somewhere? No, I reason not, when lawyers abide.



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 09:58 AM
link   
As I stated in the other thread about this lawsuit, there's actually a federal law that invalidates lawsuits arising from criminal misuse of firearms. On those grounds alone, the plaintiffs have no case. Furthermore, this was a firearm that was sold legally and where all parties presumably did their due diligence under the law. The manufacturer, distributor and gun shop aren't responsible for criminal misuse of their product by either the final purchaser or, as in this case, if it is stolen from the final purchaser.

The plaintiffs also argue that this is a 'military weapon', but that's problematic as well. First and foremost, its not a military weapon. It physically resembles one, but no military uses a semiauto-only AR-15 as its standard infantry weapon. Second, even if it is a 'military weapon', the law allows its production and sale to the civilian market. And finally, one could also argue that Supreme Court precedent from US vs Miller applies. In that case, the USSC found that weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment must have a valid purpose to a militia. If an AR-15 is indeed a military weapon, then it obviously has value and a purpose as a militia weapon and therefore is protected under the 2nd Amendment.

So needless to say, I think this case has more legal holes in it than a block of swiss cheese. I expect it to be thrown out of court, or, at worst, that the defendants choose to settle rather than suffer the bad publicity of a lengthy trial, even one they should ultimately win.
edit on 16-12-2014 by vor78 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-12-2014 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
I smell trial lawyers looking for an easy buck here.

The M-16 (currently called the M-4) was created from the CAR-15 sporting rifle in the 1960's, not the other way around.
edit on 16-12-2014 by JIMC5499 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   
After the Columbine High School massacre, the families of the victims sued the parents of the shooters, friends of the shooters who aided in acquiring the weapons, the school district, and the sheriff's department. They did not sue the makers of the weapons.




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join