Sandy Hook families to get day in court against gunmaker

[snoop1130]

Sandy Hook families to get day in court against gunmaker

By Kanishka Singh

 

FILE PHOTO: Lynn and Christopher McDonnell, the parents of seven-year-old Grace McDonnell, grieve near Sandy Hook Elementary after learning their daughter was one of 20 school children and six adults killed after a gunman opened fire inside the school in Newtown, Connecticut, U.S., December 14, 2012. REUTERS/Adrees Latif/File Photo

 

(Reuters) - Families of victims in the Sandy Hook school massacre that killed 20 children and six adults will get their day in court about nine years from the shooting.

 

A trial date in September 2021 has been set for the lawsuit brought by them against Remington Arms Co over its marketing of the assault-style rifle used in the shooting.

 

“After nearly five years of legal manoeuvring by Remington, we will finally discover what went on behind closed doors that led to the company’s reckless marketing of the Bushmaster AR-15,” Josh Koskoff, a lawyer for the victims, said in a statement.

 

The lawsuit was filed in 2014 by the family members of nine people slain and one survivor of the 2012 massacre. Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis in Waterbury, Connecticut set the court date after about two hours of talks with lawyers for both sides.

 

“The families’ faith in the legal system has never wavered and they look forward to presenting their case to a Connecticut jury”, Koskoff added.

 

Remington did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment outside regular working hours.

 

The plaintiffs have argued that the Bushmaster AR-15 gun - a semi-automatic civilian version of the U.S. military’s M-16 - had been illegally marketed by the company to civilians as a combat weapon for waging war and killing human beings.

 

The company has argued that it should be insulated from the lawsuit by a 2005 federal law known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was aimed at blocking a wave of lawsuits damaging to the firearms industry.

 

Connecticut’s highest court, in a 4-3 ruling, said in March that families of the school children gunned down in the massacre can sue Remington.

 

The company appealed that ruling to the United States Supreme Court, which last month declined to shield the gun maker from the lawsuit.

 

The Dec. 14, 2012 rampage was carried out by 20-year-old Adam Lanza, who shot his way into the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut and fired on first-graders and adult staff before fatally shooting himself as police closed in.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-12-12

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[evadgib]

Surely the firer was to blame rather than the firearm or manufacturer?

[Bluespunk]

2 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

The plaintiffs have argued that the Bushmaster AR-15 gun - a semi-automatic civilian version of the U.S. military’s M-16 - had been illegally marketed by the company to civilians as a combat weapon for waging war and killing human beings.

Wishing them success. 

[CharlieH]

reported post removed along with a response to it.

[Daffy D]

A bit like LOS - Always blame someone or some thing else - not the shooters fault, not like there were any other guns he could have used.

 

[SanookTeufel]

How is this even a debate?

These people are trying to say marketing is responsible for someone shooting people?

unbelievable. 

[Scott]

Post violating Fair Use Policy removed.  

 

Please stay on topic.  

[stevenl]

4 hours ago, SanookTeufel said:

How is this even a debate?

These people are trying to say marketing is responsible for someone shooting people?

unbelievable. 

No, they're not.

[Don Mega]

4 hours ago, SanookTeufel said:

How is this even a debate?

These people are trying to say marketing is responsible for someone shooting people?

unbelievable. 

Surely the media outlets that unwittingly promote these massacres with their "coverage of events" are partly to blame as well.

[sunnyboy2018]

Blaming gun manufacturers and dealers for the deaths of people is about as logical as blaming heroin producers and distributors for the death of people.

[sunnyboy2018]

6 minutes ago, Don Mega said:

Surely the media outlets that unwittingly promote these massacres with their "coverage of events" are partly to blame as well.

Indeed a news blackout would greatly reduce gun crime. Thats only logical.

[Tug]

I dint agree with holding the mfg.responsible that beeing said I certainly hold the lax gun laws responsible on a side note I’d be delighted to see the sandy hook families allowed some (quality) time with a certain mr Alex Jones preferably armed with baseball  bats!

[scorecard]

10 hours ago, evadgib said:

Surely the firer was to blame rather than the firearm or manufacturer?

More NRA bullxxxx.

 

Perhaps it would be better if there never was a gun, or if gun ownership / possession was highly restricted to very specific groups of people. 

[evadgib]

35 minutes ago, scorecard said:

More NRA bullxxxx.

 

Perhaps it would be better if there never was a gun, or if gun ownership / possession was highly restricted to very specific groups of people. 

Try BASC. I more or less agree re the rest.

[Momofarang]

Small step, in a crusade of a different world and age.

[rgraham]

The gun he used has not killed anyone since, maybe it was the mentally ill guy with his hand on the trigger.

 

[Bluespunk]

5 hours ago, sunnyboy2018 said:

Blaming gun manufacturers and dealers for the deaths of people is about as logical as blaming heroin producers and distributors for the death of people.

Yes it is, perfectly logical. They both only care about profits and selling their product. Neither wants anything to affect these and that includes their product killing people.

[Mick501]

Maybe sue the Boomtown Rats too, for their brilliant "I don't like Mondays."   Maybe the notion of committing a massacre being immortalised in song is also marketing.

[Bluespunk]

24 minutes ago, Andrew65 said:

Unlike guns, cars aren't made to kill people with.

 

There was a case some years ago in the States where someone had put a pistol under the car seat, it slid out the back and the toddler in the back picked it up and shot his mother dead. I'd guess there was a chambered round in the pistol. At least it wasn't an innocent bystander that was killed.

 

Many people are just to stupid & careless to be trusted with firearms. (And yes, I've trained with and used firearms).

While I agree with much of your post, I’d say the mother accidentally shot was an innocent victim. 

[Andrew65]

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

While I agree with much of your post, I’d say the mother accidentally shot was an innocent victim. 

Who was stupid enough to put a loaded gun under the seat?

[Bluespunk]

3 minutes ago, Andrew65 said:

Who was stupid enough to put a loaded gun under the seat?

Stupid- yep I’d agree with that, but that is not to say she was not an innocent victim of the dangers of gun ownership culture.  

[evadgib]

43 minutes ago, Andrew65 said:

Unlike guns, cars aren't made to kill people with.

 

There was a case some years ago in the States where someone had put a pistol under the car seat, it slid out the back and the toddler in the back picked it up and shot his mother dead. I'd guess there was a chambered round in the pistol. At least it wasn't an innocent bystander that was killed.

 

Many people are just to stupid & careless to be trusted with firearms. (And yes, I've trained with and used firearms).

As indeed am I.

[TooBigToFit]

This shooting happened to primary school kids with 22 deaths in a wealthy area of Connecticut filled with white people and probably a lot of connections to lawyers. It's not surprising that they got this far. 

 

 

[TooBigToFit]

If guns are not a problem, I guess the only thing really wrong about the arms trafficking in the world is something like a lack of taxes paid.

[GroveHillWanderer]

15 hours ago, evadgib said:

Would you have called for all cars to be crushed & driven yours to the scrappy if they had?

That's a straw man argument. In this lawsuit, the parents are not asking for any guns to be scrapped or destroyed. They are claiming that this kind of weapon:

 

Quote

had been illegally marketed by the company

Going after the company for illegal marketing is not the same as what you're suggesting.

[GroveHillWanderer]

11 hours ago, SanookTeufel said:

How is this even a debate?

These people are trying to say marketing is responsible for someone shooting people?

unbelievable. 

No, they're making a specific and narrowly focused legal argument as stated below.

 

Quote

They accuse Remington of violating Connecticut's unfair trade practices law ...

[...]

The 2005 federal law that shields gun companies from liability has several exceptions — including one allowing lawsuits against a gun-maker or seller that knowingly violates state or federal laws governing how a product is sold or marketed.

Supreme Court allows Sandy Hook case to proceed

[Curt1591]

15 hours ago, stevenl said:

Did Mercedes market their car as suitable for killings?

Did Remington actually market their Bushmaster as "... a combat weapon for waging war and killing human beings"? Or, is this simply the attorney's assessment of the marketing? 

Now that they  have a court date, a settlement is a foregone conclusion. It shouldn't be too hard to find a sympathetic jury in Connecticut. 

[atyclb]

39 minutes ago, TooBigToFit said:

This shooting happened to primary school kids with 22 deaths in a wealthy area of Connecticut filled with white people and probably a lot of connections to lawyers. It's not surprising that they got this far. 

 

 

 

are you suggesting "white privilege" strikes again?

 

johnny cochran arguably a damn good lawyer did a decent job for oj simpson yet no white privilege to be found. how can we explain this?  

[stevenl]

26 minutes ago, Curt1591 said:

Did Remington actually market their Bushmaster as "... a combat weapon for waging war and killing human beings"? Or, is this simply the attorney's assessment of the marketing? 

Now that they  have a court date, a settlement is a foregone conclusion. It shouldn't be too hard to find a sympathetic jury in Connecticut. 

A yes, a car made for driving and a gun made for killing serve the same purpose.

 

Your question is up to a judge.

[jvs]

I hope this is a start to end this madness.