Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Arena War
      2. After Hours
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA Next

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Ai®a©ob®a

Newtown Ct Families File Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Bushmaster

Recommended Posts

Ai®a©ob®a
Sandy Hook Families File Wrongful-Death Suit Against Gun Manufacturer

 

Nine families of victims killed at Sandy Hook Elementary and one survivor have brought a wrongful-death lawsuit against the manufacturer of the rifle used in the massacre in Newtown, Conn.

It was two years ago on Sunday when Adam Lanza shot and killed 20 schoolchildren and six staff members using a Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S rifle, which was lawfully purchased by Nancy Lanza, Mr. Lanza’s mother.

 

The lawsuit, hand-delivered to a Connecticut state marshal on Saturday, names as defendants Bushmaster Firearms International LLC, which is owned by Remington Outdoor Co.; Camfour, a company that distributes Bushmaster products; and Riverview Gun Sales, a East Windsor, Conn., gun shop that sold the rifle to Ms. Lanza.

 

It claims the gunmaker, the firearms distributor, and the store that sold firearm are liable for producing and selling a weapon unfit for civilian use, reports WSJ’s Joseph De Avila.

 

Remington declined to comment. Camfour and Riverview Gun Sales didn’t return requests for comment.

George Kollitides, the chief executive of Remington Outdoor, told the Washington Times in June 2013 that Mr. Lanza alone, and not the rifle, was to blame for the killings.

 

“It’s very easy to blame an inanimate object,” he said. “Any kind of instrument in the wrong hands can be put to evil use. This comes down to intent — criminal behavior, accountability and responsibility.”

 

Joshua Koskoff, an attorney representing the families, told WSJ that “there is so much ample evidence of the inability of the civilian world to control these weapons, that is no longer reasonable to entrust them to for that purpose.”

 

According to WSJ, Jillian Soto, the sister of Victoria Soto, who died at Sandy Hook, said her family wanted to be a part of this lawsuit because they believed that civilians shouldn’t be allowed to own the rifle used in the shooting.

 

“We keep seeing this happen,” said Ms. Soto, 26 years old. “We keeping seeing mass shootings at schools. And something has to be done.”

 

Carlos Soto, 17, a brother of Ms. Soto, said the lawsuit was another way to try to bring changes to the gun industry that couldn’t be achieved in Congress.

 

Mr. Koskoff said the Bushmaster rifle used in the school attack differed slightly from the M-16, a military weapon not available to civilians. But in the military, he said, strict institutional requirements exist for storing and using the weapon.

 

The basis for the Newtown suit stems from an exception to the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, signed into law in 2005, which shields gun manufacturers from most lawsuits. Under the law, a party can be held liable for entrusting a product to another party who then causes harm to a third-party.

 

So-called negligent entrustment lawsuits are commonly filed in incidents involving automobile accidents.

A judge will have to decide whether entrustment includes a manufacturer putting a weapon into the stream of commerce that ends up in the hands of the customer, said Timothy Lytton, a professor at Albany Law School who has studied litigation against gun manufacturers. “Whether entrustment can encompass that idea depends on who is on the bench,” he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TECHN9CiAN

What a crock of sh*t. So if i stab 20 people with a number 2 pencils, the victim's families should be able to sue Papermate?

 

Guns dont kill people, sociopaths kill people.

Edited by TECHN9CiAN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dottie

Really? Just some sh*tty blame all, cash grab scheme. That's pathetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumb guy

Stupid is as stupid does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlienTwo

No one thinks the manufacturers of murder-machines should have to share in some level of the culpability of the massacre?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ai®a©ob®a

No one thinks the manufacturers of murder-machines should have to share in some level of the culpability of the massacre?

But the folks suing have to prove that Bushmaster knew when they made that specific gun that it would be used during a killing spree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlienTwo

 

No one thinks the manufacturers of murder-machines should have to share in some level of the culpability of the massacre?

But the folks suing have to prove that Bushmaster knew when they made that specific gun that it would be used during a killing spree.

 

It's a bushmaster.

 

That's like asking for proof the nuclear bomb was developed to be used for mass murder, that's it's sole purpose. Killing human beings.

 

I strongly disagree this is a "hunting weapon", I know hunters love to use it, but that's so they can use the same type of gun the army uses, this weapon was designed specifically to kill as many humans in as short a time as possible, just because most people misuse doesn't negate it's intentional, original purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glass Cloud

This would be like someone suing a cattle farmer because the restaurant that cooked a burger using the farmers beef didn't thoroughly cook it properly and the guest got sick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlienTwo

This would be like someone suing a cattle farmer because the restaurant that cooked a burger using the farmers beef didn't thoroughly cook it properly and the guest got sick.

No, this would be like suing a the US government for the medical bills incurred from getting severe radiation treatment for survivors of Nagasaki or Hiroshima.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Actually, a better analogy would be suing Dynamit Nobel for making the explosives made in a bombing. It's clear that firearm producers have an amount of culpability in reducing illicit access to their weapons but purpose is not the same thing as complicity. I couldn't reasonably sue the manufacturer of dynamite used in a bombing if their duty of care ended when that explosive was sold to a mining company. And as long as the "first-stage" sales of weapons are legal under US law, the seller can't be hold culpable for the actions perpetrated with those weapons (from then on legal culpability would rest on resellers or users). If a driver is caught speeding at 180mph, the police couldn't sue sue Porsche for selling him a car that went that fast.

 

It's going to be basically impossible for the plaintiffs to prove that Bushmaster are culpable in the deaths caused by firearms that are two, three plus degreesbof separation away from where their direct culpability on who they are sold to ends. And with good reason, at it sets an incredibly dangerous precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlienTwo

I agree with what you said, deep down. I know that. I'm just so against the legality of these firearms it's hard to see past that and to see the company is providing simply a legal product, no matter how i may feel about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick1020

Couldn't agree more with Sivispacem. I think Paul Walker's mother did the same with Porche. Surprisingly, these lawsuits end up working somehow. Can anyone explain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheGoodSgtScooter

No one thinks the manufacturers of murder-machines should have to share in some level of the culpability of the massacre?

You can't really just make something go away by making it illegal, look at the prohibition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlienTwo

 

No one thinks the manufacturers of murder-machines should have to share in some level of the culpability of the massacre?

You can't really just make something go away by making it illegal, look at the prohibition.

 

I understand, to an extent, but making guns illegal would devastate the market. It's not as easy to make illegal, under the table guns than it is to cultivate marijuana or distill alcohol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Couldn't agree more with Sivispacem. I think Paul Walker's mother did the same with Porche. Surprisingly, these lawsuits end up working somehow. Can anyone explain?

Lawyers make a buttload of money out of it. They get paid, no matter how frivolous or stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

 

 

No one thinks the manufacturers of murder-machines should have to share in some level of the culpability of the massacre?

You can't really just make something go away by making it illegal, look at the prohibition.

 

I understand, to an extent, but making guns illegal would devastate the market. It's not as easy to make illegal, under the table guns than it is to cultivate marijuana or distill alcohol.

And what of the hundreds of thousands of guns already in people's possession? Come on, the draconian stuff doesn't work. The same people who say the war on drugs is a sham because making things illegal doesn't make them go away are the same people that think making guns illegal makes them go away. It's ridiculous. Want to talk about good gun policy, licensing and registration for firearms, certain restrictions on magazine sizes, flash suppressors, etc. that is great. But "ban all guns" needs to stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlienTwo

Drugs and guns are totally different, as I stated before. Yes there are thousands of guns out there, but that is the single stupidest reason to not ban creating more. It'll take time, but they can be excised from our society if we try. And don't give me the 2nd amendment bullsh*t, because it is just that, bullsh*t. The Constitution was a document written by humans and is able to be altered by humans and is in desperate need of some updating.

 

There is no reason at all that we should be able to own devices that are made to specifically end human life.

 

No reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gay Tony

There is no reason at all that we should be able to own devices that are made to specifically end human life.

 

No reason.

The thing is though...... why have guns or weapons at all? There's a solid reason for them.

 

Picture someone is trying to kill you and they're physically stronger then you, and you have no weapon either.

 

What then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dottie

 

There is no reason at all that we should be able to own devices that are made to specifically end human life.

 

No reason.

So we shoudnt own:

knives

cars

trucks

motorcycles

any other land vehicle

planes

helicopters

boats

axes

swords

the list goes on

 

All of these at some point in time were specifically designed to kill. So we shouldn't own these right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kampioen

It's a company operating in a place where its business is completely legal. The problem is the dumb-as-sh*t gun laws in the US, not a company operating legally under these laws. Unfortunately the US also has a bad lobbying problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dottie

It's a company operating in a place where its business is completely legal. The problem is the dumb-as-sh*t gun laws in the US, not a company operating legally under these laws. Unfortunately the US also has a bad lobbying problem.

including the awful justice system where money is sometimes the true deciding factor of a case

 

With the right lawyers and money I bet this case can go to court. Im disregarding the possibility of it winning or not, but its possible for this case to go either way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kampioen

 

It's a company operating in a place where its business is completely legal. The problem is the dumb-as-sh*t gun laws in the US, not a company operating legally under these laws. Unfortunately the US also has a bad lobbying problem.

including the awful justice system where money is sometimes the true deciding factor of a case

 

With the right lawyers and money I bet this case can go to court. Im disregarding the possibility of it winning or not, but its possible for this case to go either way

 

 

I'm not that informed about the American legal system, but if this case was won, wouldn't that mean that every gun manufacturer whose guns are used to kill someone are now also guilty? Legal precedent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dottie

 

 

It's a company operating in a place where its business is completely legal. The problem is the dumb-as-sh*t gun laws in the US, not a company operating legally under these laws. Unfortunately the US also has a bad lobbying problem.

including the awful justice system where money is sometimes the true deciding factor of a case

 

With the right lawyers and money I bet this case can go to court. Im disregarding the possibility of it winning or not, but its possible for this case to go either way

 

 

I'm not that informed about the American legal system, but if this case was won, wouldn't that mean that every gun manufacturer whose guns are used to kill someone are now also guilty? Legal precedent?

 

technically no because there will have to be lawsuits against other firearm manufacturers too. This only affects Bushmaster.

If the case won, there may be more laws as a result that other firearm manufacturers will have to abide by

 

If Bushmaster gets shut down (extreme case), its not like there aren't 2152062 million more companies that make AR-15s and other firearms that Bushmaster makes

Edited by Winning001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Urban Legends

Think of all the advertising, let's say, a weapon manufacturer might do. Hell just think of any radio advert on Vice City radio. Them advertising the "Blade that can kill a man before he screams"

 

They'll argue it was advertised to kill. Not for sport. I don't see any practical uses for guns anyway! WE ARE SO FREAKIN EVOLVED AS A SPECIES

 

We shouldn't possible need them anymore. We can kill a "wild" animal well guess what? sh*t We don't even really need to kill any wild animals. I'm sure us humans can get by with less. Especially money.

 

If I was the gunmakers I would just talk to each family and ASK what they THINK they need money for. And try to help best they could. It wasn't their fault. But lawsuits are gready...in some instances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kampioen

 

 

 

It's a company operating in a place where its business is completely legal. The problem is the dumb-as-sh*t gun laws in the US, not a company operating legally under these laws. Unfortunately the US also has a bad lobbying problem.

including the awful justice system where money is sometimes the true deciding factor of a case

 

With the right lawyers and money I bet this case can go to court. Im disregarding the possibility of it winning or not, but its possible for this case to go either way

 

 

I'm not that informed about the American legal system, but if this case was won, wouldn't that mean that every gun manufacturer whose guns are used to kill someone are now also guilty? Legal precedent?

 

technically no because there will have to be lawsuits against other firearm manufacturers too. This only affects Bushmaster.

If the case won, there may be more laws as a result that other firearm manufacturers will have to abide by

 

If Bushmaster gets shut down (extreme case), its not like there aren't 2152062 million more companies that make AR-15s and other firearms that Bushmaster makes

 

 

Hmm. Doesn't seem likely to happen at all. Americans love guns (generalization, sue me).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dottie

Ill see you in court. Im suing you for...

eb331b1b9bf0f029722a7e734a51c9fcb7aaefb6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Brown

Picture someone is trying to kill you and they're physically stronger then you, and you have no weapon either.

 

What then?

 

This, right here, is an excellent reason to not ban firearms. They're equalizers. If someone threatens you who is bigger, faster, and/or stronger, you at least have a chance. If you want to argue over background checks and their effectiveness, fine, but it would be ridiculous to ban civilian use of semi-automatic firearms. I also don't understand why people are so quick to jump on the ban the scary black rifle train, since handguns are used in more homicides.

 

Anyway, stupid lawsuit is stupid. Bushmaster didn't walk into the school and shoot anyone, the shooter used his tool for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dottie

 

Picture someone is trying to kill you and they're physically stronger then you, and you have no weapon either.

 

What then?

 

This, right here, is an excellent reason to not ban firearms. They're equalizers. If someone threatens you who is bigger, faster, and/or stronger, you at least have a chance. If you want to argue over background checks and their effectiveness, fine, but it would be ridiculous to ban civilian use of semi-automatic firearms. I also don't understand why people are so quick to jump on the ban the scary black rifle train, since handguns are used in more homicides.

 

Anyway, stupid lawsuit is stupid. Bushmaster didn't walk into the school and shoot anyone, the shooter used his tool for that.

 

Its because theyre 10000% more deadly duh. Everyone knows that

1067d1359061954-assault-musket-musketsco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlienTwo

 

 

There is no reason at all that we should be able to own devices that are made to specifically end human life.

 

No reason.

So we shoudnt own:

knives

cars

trucks

motorcycles

any other land vehicle

planes

helicopters

boats

axes

swords

the list goes on

 

All of these at some point in time were specifically designed to kill. So we shouldn't own these right?

 

Of your list, the only items that were "designed specifically to kill" are the knives, axes and swords. All of which are pretty easy to defend against... it's a logical fallacy to compare guns to boats.

 

And for the "equalizer" comment; we don't live in Thunderdome. We have police for a reason...

 

 

 

To kill black people

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
darthYENIK

How fast does the judge throw out this case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.