Skip to comments.
Lawyer: Bushmaster, Bull's Eye Settle for $2.5 Million in D.C. Sniper Shootings
AP ^
| Sep 8, 2004
| Anon
Posted on 09/08/2004 7:37:36 PM PDT by Pharmboy
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-67 next last
To: Servant of the 9
It was their insurance carrier that made the decision im sure. They probably had nothing to do with if they settled or not.
To: Blood of Tyrants
Probably a cost verse benefit thing.
How much were the lawyers costing a day?
What pressure did their insurance company put on them?
How much longer would the "case" have dragged on if they did not settle?
Still a major disappointment.
22
posted on
09/08/2004 8:10:36 PM PDT
by
Richard-SIA
("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
To: DocRock
They can sue the alcohol manufacturer, too.
23
posted on
09/08/2004 8:11:06 PM PDT
by
xrp
(Executing assigned posting duties flawlessly -- ZERO mistakes)
To: Joe Brower
Wait till ya see their prices for post AWB era rigs.........:o)
Stay safe !
24
posted on
09/08/2004 8:11:25 PM PDT
by
Squantos
(Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet. ©)
To: Joe Brower
Some folks just gotta learn the hard way. What really sucks is the precedent set.
The AWB may be dyin', but it appears there are still more fights to fight....
25
posted on
09/08/2004 8:11:58 PM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
To: Walkingfeather
I'll bet you are right. They don't have deep pockets like the tobacco companies and can't afford to hire legions of lawyers to drag it out in court for 15 years.
26
posted on
09/08/2004 8:12:04 PM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn't be, in its eyes, a slave.)
To: xrp
"They can sue the alcohol manufacturer, too."
Ahhhh... That's why I'm not a liberal lawyer. I didn't think of that!
27
posted on
09/08/2004 8:13:55 PM PDT
by
DocRock
(Why don't the RNC protesters come down here and help clean up after Charley and Frances?)
To: Joe Brower
Well, this sucks. You'd think that Bushmaster might have taken a lesson from what happened to other manufacturers who have caved in this way. So I guess this is why Bushmaster recently raised their prices.
I'm going to withold judgement on this until I can get some more info.
28
posted on
09/08/2004 8:15:22 PM PDT
by
Mulder
(All might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they should.-- Samuel Adams)
To: Pharmboy
So now GM will pay when someone uses a GM vehicle as a gettaway car..
or if some drunk kills a kid with a GM product?
This is wrong...and Bushmaster's paying thieves protection money will send the scent of blood to the trial lawyers receptors...
The sharks are coming to shut down manufacturers
Bad Bushmaster Bad Bad Bad
29
posted on
09/08/2004 8:20:09 PM PDT
by
joesnuffy
(Two Heads Are Better Than One...Unless They're On The Same Person -Andy Sipowicz)
To: Pharmboy
Bushmaster has too much competition for this. My next purchase may be Colt. I dropped S&W when pulled their crap. z
Bushmaster bears no responsibility because if Bushmaster's product did not exist, the DC area snipers would simply have used something else.
30
posted on
09/08/2004 8:23:21 PM PDT
by
oyez
(¡Qué viva la revolución de Reagan!)
To: joesnuffy
The AW law may expire, but I expect John Edwards and his trial lawyers to come out of the woodwork early next year. If the Democrats do well in November, we can expect a fresh crop of draconian bills to infect congress next spring.
31
posted on
09/08/2004 8:27:55 PM PDT
by
oyez
(¡Qué viva la revolución de Reagan!)
To: Pharmboy
"The settlement with Bushmaster marks the first time a gun manufacturer has agreed to pay damages for negligent distribution of weapons"I doubt Bushmaster agreed to anything, other than to allow their insurance carrier to minimize the loss. The carrier would have had to cover the cost of the harassment suit. THe clowns who brought suit are finaced by such evil clowns as G. Soros, hollyweird perverts and all the little naive do good grabbers. No way BM agreeded that they were negligent. This is just brady grabber propaganda.
32
posted on
09/08/2004 8:31:43 PM PDT
by
spunkets
To: TortReformer
President Bush isn't going to have a honeymoon period as the Democrats are already planning to file frivolous lawsuits but the bushel basket . Also you can bank on the Democrats doing everything they possibly can to stop anything that The President needs to get done even if it costs lives of service members in the WOT.
33
posted on
09/08/2004 8:33:50 PM PDT
by
Nebr FAL owner
(Here's to Abdul seeing the light ,preferably from a 20 megaton nuke up close & personal)
To: Nebr FAL owner
There always is a honeymoon period to give the country a break...That's how bush got his tax cuts passed...I predict that Rheinquist will retire almost immediately after the elections to give Bush a chance to put whomever he wants on the bench...or at least that's what I would do if I were the Chief Justice...
To: Libertarianize the GOP
Bullseye, yes, but Bushmaster, no. Whether Bullseye complies with the law and good business practices is not Bushmaster's job to determine, it is the BATFE's. Why should a manufacturer be liable for criminal misuse of its products? If anyone should be held accountable for the fact that the rifle, and many others, went unnoticed when they went missing from Bullseye, it should be the BATFE, whose (unconstitutional) charter includes ensuring that gun sellers comply with storage and notification laws.
35
posted on
09/08/2004 8:58:06 PM PDT
by
coloradan
(Hence, etc.)
To: coloradan
Should the fact that the government regulates a business excuse the manufacturer from any oversight of those it chooses to let sell its product? I like less government and more personal responsibility.
To: DocRock
I'm anxiously anticipating x-42's lawsuit against McDonalds for negligently distribtion of Big Mac's and super-sized fries.
37
posted on
09/08/2004 9:05:22 PM PDT
by
Hat-Trick
(Do you trust a government that cannot trust you with guns?)
To: Hat-Trick
My apologies. Fingers on the home row.
Negligent distribution.
38
posted on
09/08/2004 9:07:34 PM PDT
by
Hat-Trick
(Do you trust a government that cannot trust you with guns?)
To: joesnuffy
A portion of the proceeds of the lawsuit will likely pay for lawyers' fees in ADDITIONAL lawsuits. By paying out, Bushmaster shelled out money that is going to be used to against them again...
39
posted on
09/08/2004 9:16:48 PM PDT
by
Mini-14
To: Libertarianize the GOP
I like less government too, but I also like government responsibility. It is not Bushmaster's job to inspect every gun store that would sell its firearms. Under present law, if the place has an FFL, they have been checked by the BATFE and approved. If it later turns out that Bullseye is negligent, that means the licensing authority failed in its duty. I would be all for abolishing the BATFE entirely as an utter failure, but given that it exists, checking up on negligent dealers is its problem, not Bushmaster's. Holding Bushmaster responsble for a government-approved gun dealer's negligence is wrong, unless you can prove collusion or conspiracy between Bushmaster and Bullseye.
40
posted on
09/08/2004 9:35:00 PM PDT
by
coloradan
(Hence, etc.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-67 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson