• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How They Did It: Sandy Hook Families Gain Long-Awaited Legal Wins

JMB802

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 29, 2020
Messages
13,571
Reaction score
14,846
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other

A good synopsis of how lawyers proved that Remington violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, a consumer protection law. Some highlights from the article.

At the heart of the legal strategy against Remington was the families’ claim that the manufacturer had illegally marketed the military-style Bushmaster to troubled young men like the Sandy Hook gunman, Adam Lanza, 20. Remington said the families lacked proof the gunman ever saw its advertising before he killed himself inside the bullet-riddled school.

Before the shooting, Mr. Lanza had spent hours a day playing Call of Duty, a video game in which players used the Bushmaster to wage war. Mr. Koskoff, the lawyer for the families, had played Call of Duty too, introduced to it by one of his sons — and he recognized the duct-taped magazines from a contemporaneous version of the game.

Flashy, militaristic pitches with macho slogans like “Forces of opposition, bow down,” “Clear the room” and “Consider your man card reissued” ran in men’s magazines, but also on online marketplaces and websites frequented by young men immersed in combat weaponry, Mr. Koskoff said. The Bushmaster appeared in combat video games like Call of Duty, which “is a virtual shooting range for potential future users,” Mr. Koskoff said.

“The gun conglomerate formed by Cerberus blew through two very well established lines by targeting younger users who could not be lawful purchasers, and people who presented an increased risk to public safety,” Mr. Koskoff said. “They never asked, ‘How can we market this weapon in a way that reduces the risk of dangerous use?’ It appears from all the evidence that they did the opposite.”

Mr. Koskoff was still exploring legal avenues for the case in the closing days of 2013 when the Connecticut State Police released thousands of photos and records from their investigation of the shooting.

When he saw the image of duct-taped magazines lying on the floor, the leg of a small desk chair at the edge of the frame, “the hair on my arms stood up,” he said. “I knew that without a single document I could make the case that there was a connection between the marketing of the gun in the game, this kid and the shooting.”

Years later, preparing to depose Remington executives, Mr. Koskoff asked a paralegal to create a PowerPoint slide with the classroom photo on the left, and an image of the taped magazines from Call of Duty on the right. They were nearly identical.
 
Hopefully this sets a precedent for gun manufacturers to get sued in future mass shooting cases. It's about time something like this happened.
 

A good synopsis of how lawyers proved that Remington violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, a consumer protection law. Some highlights from the article.

At the heart of the legal strategy against Remington was the families’ claim that the manufacturer had illegally marketed the military-style Bushmaster to troubled young men like the Sandy Hook gunman, Adam Lanza, 20. Remington said the families lacked proof the gunman ever saw its advertising before he killed himself inside the bullet-riddled school.

Before the shooting, Mr. Lanza had spent hours a day playing Call of Duty, a video game in which players used the Bushmaster to wage war. Mr. Koskoff, the lawyer for the families, had played Call of Duty too, introduced to it by one of his sons — and he recognized the duct-taped magazines from a contemporaneous version of the game.

Flashy, militaristic pitches with macho slogans like “Forces of opposition, bow down,” “Clear the room” and “Consider your man card reissued” ran in men’s magazines, but also on online marketplaces and websites frequented by young men immersed in combat weaponry, Mr. Koskoff said. The Bushmaster appeared in combat video games like Call of Duty, which “is a virtual shooting range for potential future users,” Mr. Koskoff said.

“The gun conglomerate formed by Cerberus blew through two very well established lines by targeting younger users who could not be lawful purchasers, and people who presented an increased risk to public safety,” Mr. Koskoff said. “They never asked, ‘How can we market this weapon in a way that reduces the risk of dangerous use?’ It appears from all the evidence that they did the opposite.”

Mr. Koskoff was still exploring legal avenues for the case in the closing days of 2013 when the Connecticut State Police released thousands of photos and records from their investigation of the shooting.

When he saw the image of duct-taped magazines lying on the floor, the leg of a small desk chair at the edge of the frame, “the hair on my arms stood up,” he said. “I knew that without a single document I could make the case that there was a connection between the marketing of the gun in the game, this kid and the shooting.”

Years later, preparing to depose Remington executives, Mr. Koskoff asked a paralegal to create a PowerPoint slide with the classroom photo on the left, and an image of the taped magazines from Call of Duty on the right. They were nearly identical.
A insurance company settling out of court to avoid the higher costs of fighting it to quickly settle bankruptcy does not prove the lawyers proved anything in a court of law. The insurance company should have never settled out of court. The whole premise that Remington marketed to kids is a load garbage cooked up by anti-2nd amendment trash and their greedy lawyers.
 
A insurance company settling out of court to avoid the higher costs of fighting it to quickly settle bankruptcy does not prove the lawyers proved anything in a court of law. The insurance company should have never settled out of court. The whole premise that Remington marketed to kids is a load garbage cooked up by anti-2nd amendment trash and their greedy lawyers.

Wow! It would have cost them MORE than $73M to take this to trial?
 
Hopefully this sets a precedent for gun manufacturers to get sued in future mass shooting cases. It's about time something like this happened.

It doesn’t. That’s why settlements are made…so a precedent isn’t set.
 
A insurance company settling out of court to avoid the higher costs of fighting it to quickly settle bankruptcy does not prove the lawyers proved anything in a court of law. The insurance company should have never settled out of court. The whole premise that Remington marketed to kids is a load garbage cooked up by anti-2nd amendment trash and their greedy lawyers.
The USSC said otherwise. Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed November 12, 2019
 
Yea, this is a travesty in the legal system.

First off, the video games use guns that look like military style weapons, including the M4, the military assault rifle. The Remington rifle is simply in the same style, not something that is actually found in any of the games.

Second off, how do you prove that any such advertisements actually contributed? The shooter in this case was a homebound retard who killed his own mother to get his hands on the gun.

Lastly, this is really just what happens when you have anti-gun jurisdictions with vast pools of money funding these suits (ie: Bloomberg).
 
A insurance company settling out of court to avoid the higher costs of fighting it to quickly settle bankruptcy does not prove the lawyers proved anything in a court of law. The insurance company should have never settled out of court. The whole premise that Remington marketed to kids is a load garbage cooked up by anti-2nd amendment trash and their greedy lawyers.
The same can be said for the contrary. The settlement isn't proof that the parents of the murdered Sandy Hook children had no case.

The financial settlement is evidence that the insurance companies were worried enough about the expense of a court outcome that they settled.

In addition to the financial settlement, lawyers for the families said that Remington agreed to release thousands of pages of internal company documents, including possible plans for how to market the weapon used in the massacre — a stipulation that had been a key sticking point during negotiations.

The families have said that a central aim of the lawsuit was to pry open the industry and expose it to more scrutiny. Remington had resisted turning over any internal documen
ts.
 
It doesn’t. That’s why settlements are made…so a precedent isn’t set.


It doesn't set a LEGAL precedent but it certainly sets a BUSINESS precedent for insurers who cover firearms manufacturers...
 
It doesn't set a LEGAL precedent but it certainly sets a BUSINESS precedent for insurers who cover firearms manufacturers...

A legal precedent is binding. I’m not sure what a “business “ precedent is… but it’s not binding.
 
It doesn't set a LEGAL precedent but it certainly sets a BUSINESS precedent for insurers who cover firearms manufacturers...
I just added information to my post above about the massive document release related to the settlement. I suspect that once lawyers weed through the garbage that Remington added to obfuscate, they will find more chinks in the legal armor given to the gun makers by congress.

 
Last edited:
A legal precedent is binding. I’m not sure what a “business “ precedent is… but it’s not binding.


Didn't say it was binding.... What I said was this settlement will likely guide not only any future lawsuits but also will guide actuaries as to the risk of insuring firearms manufacturers.
 
It doesn’t. That’s why settlements are made…so a precedent isn’t set.

It does set a precedent. When was the last time a gun manufacturer settled out of court?

That's called a precedent.
 
It does set a precedent. When was the last time a gun manufacturer settled out of court?

That's called a precedent.

Again, not a binding one. If someone else brings a similar suit, that the gun manufacturer settled in this case doesn't help them at all in winning their case.
 
Didn't say it was binding.... What I said was this settlement will likely guide not only any future lawsuits but also will guide actuaries as to the risk of insuring firearms manufacturers.

How will in any way be a guide?
 
Again, not a binding one. If someone else brings a similar suit, that the gun manufacturer settled in this case doesn't help them at all in winning their case.
It's not a legal precedent, but it's still a precedent. This will open the door for other gun manufacturers to get sued and settle out of court.
 
Sandy Hook was an extreme case and had extremely bad optics for the lawyers, insurance company and gun manufacturers.

It was the kind of case that COULD set a precedent...and that's the whole point. If you settle extreme cases that could be lost in court, you avoid creating a precedent...that might allow for less extreme cases to succeed.

BTW, I'm not arguing about what is right or wrong in this case. I'm talking about what is.
 
It's not a legal precedent, but it's still a precedent. This will open the door for other gun manufacturers to get sued and settle out of court.

It doesn't open the door for anything, legally. It doesn't make future cases more likely to be settled or ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
 
How will in any way be a guide?


Seriously? LMAO...


 
Sandy Hook was an extreme case and had extremely bad optics for the lawyers, insurance company and gun manufacturers.

It was the kind of case that COULD set a precedent...and that's the whole point. If you settle extreme cases that could be lost in court, you avoid creating a precedent...that might allow for less extreme cases to succeed.

BTW, I'm not arguing about what is right or wrong in this case. I'm talking about what is.

Nah.

This was settled because the insurance companies saw no end in sight. Bloomberg was happily to fund the legal assault beyond the cost of the policy limits (ie: the settlement). The insurance companies basically decided they can either spend the money to defend for decades or settle now. Remington had nothing to do with it and it didn't cost them a dime. It was purely their insurance companies and their decision to cut bait.

This is, again, why you also see the gun manufacturers moving to more friendly jurisdictions. They all left CT, RI, MA, VA, and NY because of this stuff.
 
Seriously? LMAO...



So you're somehow claiming that those 13 states had prior knowledge of the Sandy Hook settlement and hopped on board because of it?
 
Nah.

This was settled because the insurance companies saw no end in sight. Bloomberg was happily to fund the legal assault beyond the cost of the policy limits (ie: the settlement). The insurance companies basically decided they can either spend the money to defend for decades or settle now. Remington had nothing to do with it and it didn't cost them a dime. It was purely their insurance companies and their decision to cut bait.

This is, again, why you also see the gun manufacturers moving to more friendly jurisdictions. They all left CT, RI, MA, VA, and NY because of this stuff.

That's one way to spin it. And it's possible. But I doubt it.

Legal precedent can also be set the other way. If they were looking to shut down future cases and really thought their defense was bulletproof, they would have been motivated to create that legal precedent and even in an extreme case like Sandy Hook, the gun manufacturers are never at fault. That would look good on the actuarial tables for the insurance companies, as well.
 
So you're somehow claiming that those 13 states had prior knowledge of the Sandy Hook settlement and hopped on board because of it?


They had prior knowledge that the United States Supreme Court let the Sandy Hook case continue under Connecticut consumer protection laws...
 
They had prior knowledge that the United States Supreme Court let the Sandy Hook case continue under Connecticut consumer protection laws...

Yes, THAT was legal precedent. The settlement, however, was not.

BTW, the legal threshold for being able to sue is MUCH LESS than the legal threshold for being able to win that suit.
 
That's one way to spin it. And it's possible. But I doubt it.

Legal precedent can also be set the other way. If they were looking to shut down future cases and really thought their defense was bulletproof, they would have been motivated to create that legal precedent and even in an extreme case like Sandy Hook, the gun manufacturers are never at fault. That would look good on the actuarial tables for the insurance companies, as well.

No, not at all.

A legal precedent is about a ruling that establishes case law. A settlement is an economics lesson, nothing else. It simply became economical for the insurance companies to settle. In their case they knew that their maximum liability exposure was the settlement amount, they also knew that you had a multi-billionaire who was very willing to throw enough legal money behind it to just drag it out forever and cost them even more than that.

So why bother?

This is my point. The US needs a legal standard where the loser pays for the defense on the other side and has to post bond to do so. This lets plaintiffs bring endless legal cases with the strategy of just burning money
 
Back
Top Bottom