Remington Reaches Historic $33 Million Settlement With Families Of Sandy Hook Victims

NC Rob

NC Rob

May The Bridges I Burn Light The Way
Multi-Factor Enabled
Joined
Apr 15, 2020
Messages
2,904
Location
Statesville, NC
Rating - 100%
42   0   0
Another communist shit hole. Hopefully it goes to zero due to Remington's bankruptcy case.

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com www.zerohedge.com

Remington and the families of nine victims from the Sandy Hook school massacre, the second-deadliest school shooting in US history, have reached a settlement that was years in the making: the gun-maker and manufacturer of the Bushmaster AR-15 used by shooter Adam Lanza will pay a total of $33MM. Divided up among the families, that comes to $3.66MM each (before the lawyer's cut). The families insist the money is no substitute for the brutal killing of their loved one.

According to Reuters, the settlement must still be approved by the Alabama judge overseeing the Remington bankruptcy case. The plaintiffs allege that Remington's marketing contributed to the shooting. In a February court filing, the plaintiff's legal team argued that the value of their claims could exceed $1 billion, including punitive damage - a pretty obvious negotiating tactic.



The case attracted national headlines when it as first filed in 2014, nearly two years after the shooting. Lanza killed 6 adults and 20 students using a Remington Bushmaster rifle, shooting his way into the elementary school after murdering his mother at home. The massacre ended when Lanza committed suicide as police approached.

Only nine families joined the lawsuit, and many joined for political reasons, as the goal is to increase the financial pressure on companies that sell "assault weapons", a label popular among proponents of gun control.

Josh Koskoff, one of the families' lawyers, on Tuesday said his clients would "consider their next steps" in response to the offer from Huntsville, Alabama-based Remington.
"Since this case was filed in 2014, the families' focus has been on preventing the next Sandy Hook," Koskoff said in a statement. "An important part of that goal has been showing banks and insurers that companies that sell assault weapons to civilians are fraught with financial risk."
Click to expand...
The families initially claimed that Remington knowingly marketed the gun for use by people to "carry out offensive, military style combat missions against their perceived enemies."

While the families would certainly love to squeeze all the money, Remington has now filed for bankruptcy twice since the shooting, most recently in July 2020, as restrictions on gun sales in some states ate into gun sales.

Whether the settlement will ultimately be accepted remains to be seen, though it's pretty lkely given that both parties have reportedly agreed to all the terms. It marks the first legal setback for gun makers in a year where a California judge overturned the Golden State's ban on assault weapons.
 
chiefjason said:
Anyone explain how Remington is responsible for Lanza when it was his mother’s rifle?
Click to expand...
Exactly.
He murdered his mother and then stolen her legally acquired, and legally stored firearm.

What kind of car did he drive to the shooting? That manufacturer is certainly responsible.
What about the pharmaceutical company that made the SSRI’s he was either on or withdrawing from?
 
I have to believe the only reason “a settlement” was reached is because of the final bankruptcy and the court for that ending anything ongoing at whatever point it was (ie a settlement in this case just to finalize what the company has/owes) so the business can be sold off to cover said bankruptc.

If not. Wow. All the idiots fantasize about being able to sue makers out of existence because their product is “scary”. Even with the obvious “runaway train” event opening up manufacturers of well, anything to civil litigation if a product causes harm…

I can’t fathom how that case would turn the tide?? That POS (who should already have shed his mortal coil with swift assistance) murdered someone (his own mother) stole her property, then used such to kill more innocents. If it was a stolen vehicle used to crash into a crowded area, killing innocents just the same. What would the difference be?
 
Pineapple said:
Budweiser and Jack Daniels next?
Click to expand...
"Don't worry, I'll get you something"..... what a settlement lawyer tells you.
Meadow Walker sued the car company in 2015. The daughter of late actor Paul Walker has settled her wrongful death lawsuit with Porsche two years after she claimed the car company was responsible for her father's death. ... Both Paul Walker and the driver, Roger Rodas, were pronounced dead at the scene.
 
There were two people that committed crimes that day, the shooter, and the shooters mother for allowing access to firearms to mentally ill individual. Lanza stated in his writings that he wanted to get the high score, if he had been playing race games like death race instead of combat games, and took his mother BMW to mow down kids at the bus stop, do you think they would have sued BMW? Still amazed that the video game industry has been shielded from liability, must have some deep pockets for political donations to the left
 
Guns ,ammo, related stuff will soon be illegal to own. You can't establish a globalist peaceful utopia with the serf being armed. The writing is on the wall and I'm guessing in the next 50 years. Americans of today can't or wont take heed.
R
 
Trevillian said:
I have to believe the only reason “a settlement” was reached is because of the final bankruptcy and the court for that ending anything ongoing at whatever point it was (ie a settlement in this case just to finalize what the company has/owes) so the business can be sold off to cover said bankruptc.

If not. Wow. All the idiots fantasize about being able to sue makers out of existence because their product is “scary”. Even with the obvious “runaway train” event opening up manufacturers of well, anything to civil litigation if a product causes harm…

I can’t fathom how that case would turn the tide?? That POS (who should already have shed his mortal coil with swift assistance) murdered someone (his own mother) stole her property, then used such to kill more innocents. If it was a stolen vehicle used to crash into a crowded area, killing innocents just the same. What would the difference be?
Click to expand...
It’s almost like I said the exact same thing
 
BlackGun said:
The good news is it was not a favorable ruling by a court to set precedence for all the other litigations to follow. They may never see that money with a judge handling the bankruptcy payouts.
Click to expand...
Good point about case law.
But I wonder if they would try to wring that money from Vista. I'm not a lawyer.
 
Last edited:
BS case BS settlement. I hate Leftists.
 
This article gives a fact-filled, reasonably objective summary of the issues -- including the rationale behind the suit:
www.cbsnews.com

Marketing tactics for AR rifles under new scrutiny after mass shootings

Gun-control activists say the ads risk inspiring the next shooter, while gun-rights advocates insist the weapons are being blamed for the works of deranged individuals
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com

In March 2019, the Connecticut Supreme Court breathed renewed life into the lawsuit when it ruled the families could sue Remington for marketing a military-style weapon to civilians. (Their decision reversed a Connecticut superior court's ruling.) The SCOTUS then declined to take up the case, probably because of the effing 2020 'election' -- which means the Connecticut Supreme Court's ruling stands.

Personally I see this as a SCOTUS failure.
 
Last edited:
surrealone said:
This article gives a fact-filled, reasonably objective summary of the issues -- including the rationale behind the suit:
www.cbsnews.com

Marketing tactics for AR rifles under new scrutiny after mass shootings

Gun-control activists say the ads risk inspiring the next shooter, while gun-rights advocates insist the weapons are being blamed for the works of deranged individuals
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com

In March 2019, the Connecticut Supreme Court breathed renewed life into the lawsuit when it ruled the families could sue Remington for marketing a military-style weapon to civilians. (Their decision reversed a Connecticut superior court's ruling.) The SCOTUS then declined to take up the case, probably because of the effing 2020 'election' -- which means the Connecticut Supreme Court's ruling stands.

Personally I see this as a SCOTUS failure.
Click to expand...

Sir Roberts the douche shirked his constitutional responsibility! *gasp* im shocked i tell you, shocked!
 
surrealone said:
This article gives a fact-filled, reasonably objective summary of the issues -- including the rationale behind the suit:
www.cbsnews.com

Marketing tactics for AR rifles under new scrutiny after mass shootings

Gun-control activists say the ads risk inspiring the next shooter, while gun-rights advocates insist the weapons are being blamed for the works of deranged individuals
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com

In March 2019, the Connecticut Supreme Court breathed renewed life into the lawsuit when it ruled the families could sue Remington for marketing a military-style weapon to civilians. (Their decision reversed a Connecticut superior court's ruling.) The SCOTUS then declined to take up the case, probably because of the effing 2020 'election' -- which means the Connecticut Supreme Court's ruling stands.

Personally I see this as a SCOTUS failure.
Click to expand...
Well put, however Adam Lanza never purchased a weapon, he stole them from someone (his mother) whom he had just murdered.
I see this as nothing but a media grab.
 
Hamburgers have killed more Americans than firearms
 
Spartan01 said:
Well put, however Adam Lanza never purchased a weapon, he stole them from someone (his mother) whom he had just murdered.
I see this as nothing but a media grab.
Click to expand...
It might be nothing but a media grab ... except the SCOTUS could have shut it all down and elected not to -- hence why I feel it's a SCOTUS failure.
 
The best way to handle this crap is to change the laws(like that will ever happen) so a lawsuit is a winner take all deal. The whole thing is rotten to the core because lawyers always get paid win or lose.

Change the laws so the winning side gets payed and the losing side gets nothing. Lawyers included. That will stop a lot of law suits before they start.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom