Families of Sandy Hook massacre victims sue gunmaker

[Politically_Incorrect12]

New York (AFP) - Families of victims in the 2012 Sandy Hook school massacre filed a US lawsuit Monday seeking damages from the manufacturers of the high-powered assault rifle used in the slaughter.





The lawsuit was lodged a day after the two-year anniversary of the horrific shooting that claimed the lives of 26 people, among them 20 young children.

The suit aims to hold the makers of the deadly AR-15, Bushmaster, liable for wrongful death and negligence.

It says 20-year-old killer Adam Lanza would never have been able to carry out his 264-second attack if he had not had access to a high-capacity weapon which had been "specifically engineered" for the United State military for use in combat.

Read more at: news.yahoo.com/families-sandy-hook-massacre-victims-sue-gunmaker-201118453.html

[billisonboard]

The article indicates they are "seeking damages" - the execution of one young child from the family of each of the members of each company's executive board? 

[happyhoix]

Interesting.

I thought they might try to sue the gunman's mom, because she was the one that bought all the weapons and ammo and stored them in her home, knowing when she did so that her son was bat shit crazy, but I think I heard her estate is only maybe 64K. 

To be liable for wrongful death and negligence, do you have to prove someone did something illegal, or only that someone did something that contributed to a death, when a reasonable person would have known it might contribute to a death?  

[Deleted]

I'd bet some scummy lawyer (for the record, not ALL lawyers are scummy) talked them into it... for a fee of course.

Any lawyer worth his Bar card wouldn't take that case. I mean... what are they suing for... "Design defect"? "Failure to operate as designed"? "Faulty workmanship"?

I'm sorry those people died, but don't blame the gun or the gun manufacturer. It worked as intended (pull trigger, bullet comes out of barrel at high velocity).

[b2r]

  So, had he used his mom's vehicle to kill these children...they would sue GM? Ford?...

[djAdvocate]

what next?  parents of Iraqi children suing the US military?

[EVT1]

It's worked in the past- rarely- probably why the NRA went ape shit and pushed a law to protect the manufacturers from lawsuits.

I think a much easier lawsuit to win would be against the manufacturers of high capacity magazines- the further the product gets from a legitimate use the easier the case would be IMO.

.223 bolt action rifle vs. an AR-15 with a 300 round drum magazine for example- and the fact that these things show up repeatedly at mass shootings is pretty compelling evidence.  Can't remember if there were any at Sandy Hook or not.

I guess the question to be answered is who is responsible for the cost to society?  If not the people that make and sell them to the public then who?  Seems to me the taxpayers are on the hook for an awful lot due to them. 

[EVT1]

Ouch DJ- but I say go for it- if a drone strike takes out a wedding seems to me they are due

[EVT1]

Should be interesting:

www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-sandy-hook-gun-lawsuit-20141215-story.html

     The lawsuit by families of nine students and adults killed and one surviving teacher who was shot several times by Adam Lanza will attempt to use what is known as the negligent entrustment exemption to the law. In a negligent entrustment case, a party can be held liable for entrusting a product, in this case the Bushmaster rifle, to another party who then causes harm to a third party,

    Extending that to the gun manufacturer is unprecedented. Because it has never before been brought before a court, it is difficult to predict what will happen, according to Dennis Henigan, former vice president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

      The AR-15 was specifically engineered for the U.S. military to meet the needs of changing warfare,"  "The weapon was not designed for home defense or hunting. This weapon was designed to efficiently kill other human beings in combat."

     the lawsuit claims that Bushmaster is clearly aware that the AR-15 has become the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  "Time and again, mentally unstable individuals and criminals have acquired an AR-15 with ease, and they have unleashed the rifle's lethal power on our streets, our malls, our places of worship, and our schools," the lawsuit said.  Laza.....fired 154 rounds from the Bushmaster in about five minutes.

I see a steep climb ahead- and of course increased sales

[EVT1]

Wow- the complaint is readable here:

www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/15/sandy-hook-parents-sue-bushmaster-you-sold-weapon-of-choice-for-mass-murderers.html

Say what you want about the merits or the lawyers- but they pretty much eviscerated the weapon as having any utility to the general public- and make a fair argument that the public is not the military and allowing such a weapon into their hands is actionable- and the most damning parts are the way it was marketed and the fact that police and military have mandatory training before using them- yet any jackass can buy one at Wal-Mart with zero training- and high capacity magazines were not left out- and maybe very important on that note is that they sell them ready for these huge magazines to be attached.

It's a tough 40 pages- and I bet this is going to be a long fight.

[whoisjohngalt]

Dec 15, 2014 16:17:40 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Interesting.

I thought they might try to sue the gunman's mom, because she was the one that bought all the weapons and ammo and stored them in her home, knowing when she did so that her son was bat shit crazy, but I think I heard her estate is only maybe 64K. 

To be liable for wrongful death and negligence, do you have to prove someone did something illegal, or only that someone did something that contributed to a death, when a reasonable person would have known it might contribute to a death?  

There is no money to be had suing his mother....

Gun manufactures, on a another hand....even if they settle, still more $$

[EVT1]

So maybe I revisit an earlier question- if someone's child gets riddled with bullets in grade school, lives to make it to the hospital and survives for a week and dies- just who should have to pay that 250-500K medical bill? (Of course if we had a real health care system that would not be an issue) but it is here.  Should the surviving family members be bankrupted?  Lose their house along with the room their dead child used to live in?  Taxpayers need to pay?  Anything but a corporation that unleashes this shit on society and reaps profits with no responsibility for the damage- the good old externalities- like the asbestos plant that chokes out a town or the coal company that poisons the water.  The only people apparently not responsible is them.

[Deleted]

The gun is just a tool. Blame (and expenses) should go to the USER of the tool.

[EVT1]

Dec 15, 2014 23:38:09 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

The gun is just a tool. Blame (and expenses) should go to the USER of the tool.

Nah- not buying that lame excuse- and of course when the user of such tool is dead kind of hard to be compensated.

So maybe answer the question- since OBVIOUSLY the fucking maniac who killed themselves or got shot by police are not going to pay the bill, or even the lunatics facing trail are not going to pay the bill- who should pay it?

Sounds to me like you are supporting corporate profits over the destruction their products cause. Who should pay Richard?  And if the 'USER' can't pay then who? Anybody but the people that put the shit on the market right?

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

Exactly, Richard. DH & I were avid target shooters/competitors.

A weapon is only as dangerous as the hands of the person who's holding it. If that person is unstable, they shouldn't have access to weapons. Hard to control, (at least in the US) but the woman who owned the gun knew the son wasn't "right" - that weapon should not have been accessible to him. PERIOD. She shouldn't have even had it in her home to begin with.

Gun ownership laws are much more strict here in Canada. MUCH more. You have to jump through a lot of hoops before being allowed a permit - and it's a long process. You can't just walk into a gun shop and purchase.

We even had re-loading equipment for DH's rifles and a couple of hand-guns - that was also a "jump-through-hoops" and red-tape process to be able to own.

You probably wouldn't be allowed to own an AR-15 here - It's been a few years since I was a target shooter, so I'm not sure on our gun laws anymore, but I do know they're more strict than the US for possession of a weapon. /font]

[EVT1]

Know what works for me? A lawsuit like this that wins- that puts these people out of business and especially puts out of business anyone selling the magazines.  And you know what- not a bit of it effects my long list of guns. 

I have a friend with an AR-15 with red dot sights and I asked him WTF?  He was afraid it would be illegal   Same reason he bought huge magazines. Just paranoia. 

[EVT1]

Dec 16, 2014 0:21:13 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

Exactly, Richard. DH & I were avid target shooters/competitors.

A weapon is only as dangerous as the hands of the person who's holding it. If that person is unstable, they shouldn't have access to weapons. Hard to control, (at least in the US) but the woman who owned the gun knew the son wasn't "right" - that weapon should not have been accessible to him. PERIOD. She shouldn't have even had it in her home to begin with.

Gun ownership laws are much more strict here in Canada. MUCH more. You have to jump through a lot of hoops before being allowed a permit - and it's a long process. You can't just walk into a gun shop and purchase.

We even had re-loading equipment for DH's rifles and a couple of hand-guns - that was also a "jump-through-hoops" and red-tape process to be able to own.

You probably wouldn't be allowed to own an AR-15 here - It's been a few years since I was a target shooter, so I'm not sure on our gun laws anymore, but I do know they're more strict than the US for possession of a weapon. /font]

And I have been shooting since I was 10.  I know gun safety and I know bullshit- and not relevant but I have reloaded shotgun shells and pistol rounds- so that's it- so tell me about your big guns

[EVT1]

microscopious penisious

[EVT1]

Time too see which tiny dicked folks reply

[Deleted]

Dec 16, 2014 0:17:47 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Dec 15, 2014 23:38:09 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

The gun is just a tool. Blame (and expenses) should go to the USER of the tool.

Nah- not buying that lame excuse- and of course when the user of such tool is dead kind of hard to be compensated.

So maybe answer the question- since OBVIOUSLY the fucking maniac who killed themselves or got shot by police are not going to pay the bill, or even the lunatics facing trail are not going to pay the bill- who should pay it?

Sounds to me like you are supporting corporate profits over the destruction their products cause. Who should pay Richard?  And if the 'USER' can't pay then who? Anybody but the people that put the shit on the market right?

No. I am supporting using reason and logic to do one's thinking instead of emotion and/or paranoia.

Even the most devastating weapon ever devised never hurt ANYONE without someone USING it. Blame the person, not the tool.

[Shooby]

Guns exist. YOu aren't going to legislate guns out of existence. And if you try, people will make them with 3D printers.

[Deleted]

And even if guns magically disappeared, and 3-D printers couldn't print them... people that want to do bad things would just use some other tool to do their bad things.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Dec 16, 2014 0:29:40 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Know what works for me? A lawsuit like this that wins- that puts these people out of business and especially puts out of business anyone selling the magazines.  And you know what- not a bit of it effects my long list of guns. 

I have a friend with an AR-15 with red dot sights and I asked him WTF?  He was afraid it would be illegal   Same reason he bought huge magazines. Just paranoia. 

I guess as long as it doesn't affect you, then it's alright that a lawsuit like this wins. It's a dangerous precedent to set that companies are now responsible for customers who use its products illegally.  

[EVT1]

That's not what I am going for- of course some people are going to use products illegally and generally that is on them.

BUT- when you market and sell a weapon of such destructive potential or huge magazines to feed it that have no legitimate use for a civilian then it is on them IMO.  I understand where they are coming from with this and I hope they win.

[djAdvocate]

i have no problem with guns.  but i am bothered by 300M of them being in circulation in the US.  i don't think it makes us "safer".  i don't really know what to do about it, either.

[happyhoix]

There was a report in our local paper the other day that there were something like 640 guns reported stolen in 2014 in the smallish sized city where I work.

Police in the article speculated the stolen guns would be either sold or given to other criminals by the thieves.

I have zero problem with responsible gun owners having guns. It's all the stolen guns, the guns bought at gun shows,  sold under the table, sold out of the back trucks of cars, the guns that end up with the criminals and nut jobs that bother me.

In this case, both Adam Lanza and his mom were seriously mentally lacking, him for thinking killing kids was a good idea, her for thinking having high capacity, rapid fire weapons laying around the house where her deranged son could get them was a good idea. And yet their house was crammed to the gills with guns and ammo. That's frightening as hell.

No one has ever been able to explain to me how we ensure only the responsible gun owners get their hands on guns, all I ever hear about is how any attempts to limit the criminals and mental cases from getting guns will infringe on someone else's rights, so it can't possibly be done.

I don't agree. There must be something we can do to let responsible people enjoy their weapons without letting the nutbags and criminals have them, too.

[EVT1]

I still haven't heard a good answer on who should pay for the damage these products inflict on society- especially since congress decided to protect the manufacturers from lawsuits.

Maybe there needs to be an added tax on these devices to set a fund to pay for the damage they are going to do  I'm sure the NRA would love that.

[Deleted]

I know it won't get the financial remuneration that you are desiring, but, here's a thought... how about we hold the people that do bad things responsible for the bad things?



I know, I know... it's quite a novel concept.

[EVT1]

Dec 18, 2014 18:26:16 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I know it won't get the financial remuneration that you are desiring, but, here's a thought... how about we hold the people that do bad things responsible for the bad things?



I know, I know... it's quite a novel concept.

We do and that's fine- but it is inadequate.  The cost to society is huge in comparison. So tough shit is your answer on that or do you have better idea?  Bullets happen?

Why not a cost to society tax?  Or maybe require liability insurance in case someone or their deranged kid takes their murder machine into a school or movie theater?  All I know is that the cost sure does not belong on the families of the victims.

Hell take it out of the taxpayers- they are responsible for the laws allowing this shit so maybe they need to pay the costs too. 

[Deleted]

I don't have an answer. But at least I'm not suggesting the WRONG answer.