Sandy Hook Families and Gun Maker Battle Over Newtown Massacre Lawsuit

That's just crazy,if anything they should sue the second amendment is it? The right to bare arms and do mass murder.

a reply to: darkwarrior

Why?

It's patently frivolous.

It's been pointed out in this thread that with this line of reasoning, everyone everywhere who was even remotely involved in the manufacturing process should be liable.

I'm sorry for their loss, but no. This is wrong.

originally posted by: Tiamat384
a reply to: ReadLeader
Depends. Emotionally the response is the corporations should pay. Logically it is not the corporation's fault.

Emotions are not part of the legal system, only the court of public opinion.

Legally speaking, it would be a terrible precedent if the courts ruled that a gun manufacturer is responsible for the deaths caused by a maniacal mass-murderer who just happened to use their brand of firearm that day.

Better make sure that they sue the manufacturer of the rounds used in the firearms, too...and the companies that supplied the materials to make the weapons and rounds. Hell, just sue the earth, since that's where all of the materials came from to make the weapons.

These types of lawsuits are just another ingredient in what I see as the ridding of self-responsibility that the U.S. is currently promoting and actively aiding. We NEVER hold the individual responsible anymore, it's always about something else--sue McDonald's because I eat their food until I'm fat. It's that lawsuit-happy mentality that is overwhelming the pathetic-ness of our current generation of Americans.

Why do they have to sue the gun manufacturers because an individual used their product in an illegal way? Should my dad have sued Zig-Zag for making cigarette papers that I used for rolling joints in high school? I mean, it made him really angry and emotional because I was a pothead for a couple years...doesn't that make it okay?

No, emotion has no role is logical judicial hearings and their rulings. Yes, attorneys love raw emotional testimony, but in the end, the law is the law, and hopefully there isn't a terrible precedent set for something like this, just because the actions of one individual made multiple people sad and angry about guns.

Sorry to use your comment as my springboard for my opinion, but I can't stand when emotion drives illogical behavior, especially when it wastes the time of the legal system and the taxpayers' money (and points the finger at the wrong cause and problem).

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: darkwarrior

Why?

It's patently frivolous.

It's been pointed out in this thread that with this line of reasoning, everyone everywhere who was even remotely involved in the manufacturing process should be liable.

I'm sorry for their loss, but no. This is wrong.

This is like and .mp3 file vs. a .wav

Newtown are a .wav file

It is about trial lawyers thinking that they can make a buck off of these people's misery and public sentiment.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Thats why i added the logically part...obviously we cant base it off enotion. The idea that the person selling the gun or producing it should be sued because of its misuse makes no sense.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
It is about trial lawyers thinking that they can make a buck off of these people's misery and public sentiment.

To a point, but I think it's more about people who feel wronged by an entity or individual having the right to have the courts decide if they're due any compensation. That said, though, I think that judges have an obligation to decide well before a big trial commences and people/entities have to shell out tons of cash in legal fees whether or not a case even has merit.

I would argue that this one does not. In fact, it encompasses the antithesis of merit.

a reply to: JIMC5499

I think of course you are right that in part it's about lawyers wanting to make a buck (and perhaps a name for themselves).

I think it's also about the usual suspects (politicians and anti-gun activists) trying to capitalize on a horrific event.

When it comes to the parents, I don't think they are necessarily greedy nor do I think they want to continue their 15 minutes of fame.

As a parent, I seriously, sincerely can't imagine the pain of losing a child. Although losing a child at any age is all but unbearable, I suspect that the younger the child, the more painful it may be (if it even matters at that point) because they younger the child, the more innocent (even if it is simply because they didn't live long enough to get into trouble).

Of course children are not the same as pets.... but... The first time I lost a pet (my cat to cancer) it was pretty devastating. After picking up her cremated remains and selecting a nice, engraved urn, I still felt like I needed to do more. I spent a few weeks working on a sort of memorial website for her in my free time. I spent hours looking at old photos and videos of her. In retrospect, I realized that I was doing these things because I just didn't want to let go.

For the parents in question here, I suspect that they have the same desire to not let go. I believe by having the media, the politicians and lawyers wanting to keep this thing going, the parents haven't gotten to that point where they can let go. I don't think anyone is doing them a service by encouraging them to stay in the spotlight. If people truly cared about them, they would let the parents be and grieve and move on as best they can.

If this goes through, then auto makers should be sued when someone is killed by a drunk driver for not having breath analyzers in their cars.

a reply to: eluryh22
I don't think age of the child quite matters as the effect would be the same. Though I can't imagine the loss so I can't say with complete certainty. It may be the worst if you were to lose an only child, if you had more then you'd have someone still to live for. But the complete loss of who you loved...but either way (only child or not) it would be devastating.

originally posted by: cenpuppie
If this goes through, then auto makers should be sued when someone is killed by a drunk driver for not having breath analyzers in their cars.

I think a more appropriate compare would be the many cases of knifing deaths. What brand was used? Hatchets anyone?

a reply to: ReadLeader

The lawsuit is the biggest load of crap ever pitched by the ambulance chasing attorney crowd.

It is the Anti-2nd crowd, waiving the bloody shirts in front of the eyes of families that lost their kids in a very tragic event.

By law, it will go no where. And when the courts, as they should, toss this crap out, the families should in turn smack the Anti-2nd groups, and the groups then smack the attorneys.

I am skeptical of the SH story--I think it was some perverse training exercise meant to deceive, [snipped]

Maybe I'm wrong.

That said, if this case moves forward, the discovery process should reveal many details that would expose the deception. I'm betting the judge will not allow the case to move forward so that discovery will not take place.

originally posted by: Cloudbuster
That's just crazy,if anything they should sue the second amendment is it? The right to bare arms and do mass murder.

Can you please show me where in the Constitution it says we have the inherent right to "do mass murder?"

Don't project your mental dysfunction on the rest of us. The right to self defense against all enemies, foreign and domestic is far removed from the right to "do mass murder."

a reply to: Salander

Careful now. Ive seen many a SH thread shipped off to LOL because someone questioned the official story. Lol.

That being said, I agree with you.

Its odd how the famillies are never pushed into going aftet big pharma.

That Lanza twerp was on his fair share of anti psychotics.

a reply to: TheMainEvent

Lanza and a significant number of other "teenage shooters". Off label prescribing of such powerful drugs is basically against the law, but nobody says anything.

a reply to: TheMainEvent

The pharmaceutical companies are for sure to blame for many violent crimes

If you go through the list of many shootings, antidepressants were often prescribed

The medications themselves have been proven to cause suicidal and violent ideations where none previously existed, while at the same time many of these dull or detatch the prescribed emotionally while lowering inhibitions

Yeah not a lot of people will crack from it and give into the violence, but with the shear number of humans prescribed antidepressants in this country is baffling

Say 10% of America is prescrobe d an SSRI for depression or anxiety, etc. Then say shtf and in a few weeks none of these 30 million people cannot refill the script. Maybe only 1-4% will have extreme adversion to the sudden change of brain chemicals but that's still 300,000 and it will be insane on the streets

Now depression screening is mandatory to get more on these drugs

Suffering from chronic depression almost 2 decades and the only violence that tried to manifest in my body happened while withdrawing from a prescription antidepressant. I was able to abide and did not give in but many cannot resist such torment and actuate to attempt relief

70% of Americans are said to be on AT LEAST one prescription drug at any given time, painkillers and antidepressants being on the top of the list

All that being said this shooting was a publicity stunt from the beginning. If you look into it, it gets stranger and stranger

Which makes one wonder, who are these parents and how long will they be paid for this.
They are being compensated

a reply to: TheMainEvent

you just need to look at the familys interviews to tell their lieing. the truth will get out there with or without the help of this site.