Posted on 03/14/2019 11:21:30 AM PDT by bgill
I assume he drove a car to the school, are they going to sue the car manufacturer?
He had clothes and shoes on. Will the clothing and shoe companies be sued as well?
IIRC, in an actual honest court FOPA86 will result in this being quashed.
This is stupid.....................
I assume you didn’t read the article.
“Remington glorified the weapon in marketing it to young people.”
That’s their argument? Then sue Hollywood and rappers for “glorifying” violence. Sandy Fake Hook..
Facebook drove me to stalk someone....Its Facebook’s fault.
I killed someone hitting them with my car...Its Ford’s fault.
I killed someone with a ice pick, its the ice pick manufacture’s fault.
Where did these Judges get their Law Degree...Crackerjack boxes?
Triggered!
This ruling is BS.
It wasnt his fun. He didnt buy it. It was his mothers that she bought, used and stored properly.
He stole it and shot her.
There is NOTHING, in any way shape or form, that makes this company or its adevertising liable for this.
Obvious diversity hires.
This would create an interesting situation for blacks being shot by cops, you could basically sue in that situation as well. Even in a war-zone, you could find legal representation and claim the gun-makers sold weapons of war to harm you.
This would create an interesting situation for blacks being shot by cops, you could basically sue in that situation as well. Even in a war-zone, you could find legal representation and claim the gun-makers sold weapons of war to harm you.
Wasnt his rifle. Advertising doesnt apply here.
So we can sue Gay movies and TV shows for causing AIDS?
So I can now sue car companies for highway deaths....
This sort of grasping/phishing for something, anything to sue a party for usually is indicative of an immediately unseen target. Perhaps in this case the marketing industry for some purpose of control.
It’s difficult to bring the target to focus, but there’s something being sought from this more than just controlling guns. It’s marketing, but of what, or perhaps to establish government control over marketing. Perhaps opening a new field of profitable litigation.
The mother of the child-killer is culpable, are the families going after her or just the nearest “deep-pocket”?
In a sane world this will be overturned.
I could have sworn that Bushmaster was sold to Cerberus, as was Remington. I wonder why the defendant wasnt/isnt Cerberus? Being the owner of three Bushmasters, and several other AR15s, perhaps I am liable for contributing to the delinquency of a mentally unstable person as he used a Bushmaster? Good thing Ive got a few DPMS and Wyndham Weaponry. What a joke. I suppose the manner to stay liability free is to sit in a padded room with no outside contact.
Gwjack
Makes as much sense as suing the Bush family...
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.