Remington sucks but they don’t deserve this

[sftull]

Sandy hook families given the green light, by the Supreme Court, to sue Remington.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sco...nmaker-proceed

[Colin4]

Merged

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[sftull]

Yea... Just saw that.

[Dylanhardwick]

It’s opening a door way for more sue happy Americans in every front


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cajunwannabe]

I sure hope they win

[Dylanhardwick]

I sure hope they win

Why the hell would you want them to win, I get there was a tragedy but it’s not the guns fault.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wskinner]

I don’t agree with the lawsuit, but I can see where the gray area is. There were exceptions to the law protecting gun companies, and one of these exceptions deals with advertising. This is where they are going to try to hit them. Took this quote from an article on the lawsuit.........“families suing Remington, said its advertising "continued to exploit the fantasy of an all-conquering lone gunman, proclaiming: 'Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.'"........Remington actually used that statement in promoting the rifle. Who comes up with that kind of crap? What part of that seemed like a good idea? Who is their target audience with a statement like that? It will be interesting.

Police departments, homeowners, people looking to protect themselves and property? I realize the mass murderer makes up a good chunk of the gun buying market, but I’m pretty sure they weren’t the target. And while a lot of gun ads are the silly and cheesy stuff like the above, they’re not criminal.

[cajunwannabe]

Why the hell would you want them to win, I get there was a tragedy but it’s not the guns fault.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Remington wins the suit knucklehead.

[abarill]

I am no lawyer, but can someone please explain how this is remingtons fault?

In as few words as possible, please.

[wskinner]

I am no lawyer, but can someone please explain how this is remingtons fault?

In as few words as possible, please.

It’s not. (2)

[JBtflo]

Last paragraph:
"The high court's denial of Remington's petition also does not mean it will be the tribunal's last word on the issue, as it often allows controversial issues to percolate in lower courts for years before weighing in. The Remington case could also make its way back to the Supreme Court on other grounds."

[Moose843]

The shooter killed his own mother, then stole her gun from a locked gun cabinet. Tell me what advertisement Remington put out there to advocate those 2 crimes?

[cajunwannabe]

This all started when the side of a McDonald's coffee cup said "Caution, Contents Hot".....and a fella spilled it on his grandma, burned her and got paid 2.7 million.

Remington probably didn't say in their Gun Safety manual...."don't shoot your mom, may cause permanent injury or death".

Again, I hope Remington wins or I'm fixing to sue ALL the knife, fork and spoon manufacturers for making me fat.

[rp]

I am no lawyer, but can someone please explain how this is remingtons fault?

In as few words as possible, please.

It was their advertising. It is said that Remington targeted young males with guns that could blast away their opponents. In a nutshell, this opens them up because Remington encouraged the shooter's behaviour.

But as I understand, his mother bought the gun for him. I wonder how much input he had on the choice.

[Mobetter]

This all started when the side of a McDonald's coffee cup said "Caution, Contents Hot".....and a fella spilled it on his grandma, burned her and got paid 2.7 million.

When and where did this happen?

[Dylanhardwick]

When and where did this happen?

Late 80’s or 90’s


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mobetter]

Late 80’s or 90’s


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, it didn't.

The case went to trial in 94 and was very different than someone spilling coffee on their grandmother.

[Dylanhardwick]

No, it didn't.

The case went to trial in 94 and was very different than someone spilling coffee on their grandmother.

Yup it was soooo different. Her grandson was driving and she spilt her own coffee in her lap while he was stopped. I mean damn this isn’t a law blog, the statement was close enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[coot nasty]

When and where did this happen?

Not sure where but I remember it being on the news and stuff. That's why the sticker is in drive thru and all over cups now.

[CofC Waterfowler]

My understanding is the the ruling has nothing to do with the merits of the case. The court basically said gun makers are not absolutely immune when their products are involved in crimes. I’m not sure why any company would have absolute immunity from liability. Let a jury decide based upon the facts and the law. Remington still likely wins the trial.