Remington

[deermanok]

I just saw on the news that Remington has settled with the Sandyhook families for 73 million dollars.
I've always been confused about the whole situation. Adam Lanza, the shooter, killed his mother, who was the person who bought the rifle in the first place.
She had the gun locked up but the kid knew where the key was.
On that fateful day, he took the gun, killed his mother then went to the school and slaughtered all those poor kids.
Must have been some fancy lawyers to twist things around to blame Remington for the actions of that kid. I guess he was pretty much a whack job anyway.
I don't get it?

 

[michiganmuzzy]

This may screw up the future of firearms manufacturing and maybe manufacturing in general.
Will i be able to sue GMC if i get hit by a driver in a Silverado?

 

[moose23]

I saw the same story today and just shook my head. Makes no sense whatsoever. Don’t get me wrong, that was a horrible tragic incident. Probably the worst ever school shooting in my opinion because those kids were all first graders. And my heart goes out to the families of the victims. But it wasn’t Remington’s fault!!!!! It was a mentally ill young man who committed that heinous crime. It was his fault, and his fault alone. Period.

 

[gle3105]

With the mentality of this verdict any manufacturer who is anywhere connected ( meaning someone uses their product ) with such a heinous crime will be probably be liable for an INDIVIDUAL’s action.
I suppose Dodge should be responsible for the nut job in Charlottesville 2018.
So let see what’s else what might be on the list.
Smokeless powder
Bullets
Alcohol
Tobacco
Extension ladders
Drive thru hot coffee
underwear too tight
and on and on.

 

[Ninering62]

I just saw on the news that Remington has settled with the Sandyhook families for 73 million dollars.
I've always been confused about the whole situation. Adam Lanza, the shooter, killed his mother, who was the person who bought the rifle in the first place.
She had the gun locked up but the kid knew where the key was.
On that fateful day, he took the gun, killed his mother then went to the school and slaughtered all those poor kids.
Must have been some fancy lawyers to twist things around to blame Remington for the actions of that kid. I guess he was pretty much a whack job anyway.
I don't get it?

I'm 100% with ya on the " I don't get it ". I would think that no decent judge would ever let charges like those against Remington - simply the gun manufacturer in his court room to begin with. Its simply absurd. Its like letting someone sue Logitech for being offended at the dirty words I type, or someone suing Ford bc someone else was driving drunk in a ford truck & killed their family member. Its exactly the same crazy mentality. How about suing your TV maker for a show that shocks or offends you next?????? I better watch puttin out them kinda ideas huh. Heck, lets sue Mother Nature for the tree that fell on your house. Great post deermanok

 

[moose23]

Sue the silverware company because the spoon made me over weight!!

 

[deermanok]

My wife, who doesn't shoot, hunt or anything like that, thinks the decision is so wrong.
One thing I've learned over the years is that what is legal isn't always right or just.

 

[moose23]

So here’s what I don’t understand…how did these families bring up a lawsuit against Remington, when Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster to kill those 26 people? Is Bushmaster manufactured by Remington?

 

[MTY]

I hope I do not get spanked for this, but here goes. Where is the logic in suing a company for a product that can only cause harm if used incorrectly, but not being allowed to sue a company for a product that causes harm when used in accordance with the manufacturers' directions?

 

[moose23]

I did a little more reading just now and answered my own question from above. Yes, Remington manufactured the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle that Lanza used in the shooting.

 

[MTY]

Remington purchase Bushmaster about 10 years ago. I'm not sure of the exact date. The sellers signed a 5 year non compete agreement, and when the time elapsed they opened Wyndham. I think I spelled that correctly.

 

[D55]

I want to sue the judge because my head hurts trying to understand his logic.

 

[Jitterbug]

Sue the silverware company because the spoon made me over weight!!

I’m not sure if that’s how it works.

In my case, it was definitely the FORK, not the spoon!

 

[brownisdown]

Okay,why is not the alcohol and beer and liquor companies sued for a drunk driver for injury or killing people.Is that not the same as a gun manufacture building guns?Come on,somebody needs to get real about these lawsuits against gun companies.The companies are not the ones pulling the triggers!

 

[sheriffjohn]

Fact is. anyone or any group can file suit for just about anything. It's the courts that make the decisions. Attorneys (unless working on a contingency basis) get paid whether their client(s) win or lose. Remington's taken bankruptcy, assets sold and divided. Where the money is coming from to settle the judgement is my question ?

One thing's obvious - a precedent's been set. Stand by for a ram.

 

[brad502a]

the judge did not find Remington guilty. Remington settled out of court. The suit was over "marketing" not manufacturing. I don't get it either, but someone made the decision to settle.

 

[Mnt monkey]

I would sure be willing to bet that that decision to settle was influenced by outside pressure, considering the president that it set for the future. Insects Remington what was left of it has been sold this is not the Remington that we think of reorganized or the new sold company today that's back in business,, hate to sound conspiracy theorists but I bet if you followed the money trail behind the settlement you would be scared.

 

[Mnt monkey]

And since Remington sorry I never spell or Grammer CK.. then again maybe insects in Remington go together now

 

[BlackPowderGuy (AJHS)]

OK, I am not saying that I agree, but the logic goes like this:

Remington deliberately targeted some of their marketing of the gun to insecure young males, suggesting to those young men that having/owning this gun would make them more manly, more like the cool soldiers who use the military version of this gun. In marketing the gun in this fashion, Remington was in essence attempting to put the gun in the hands of those most likely to abuse the capabilities of the gun. In this way, the argument (like the prohibition in Leviticus 19:14 of "putting a stumbling block before the blind") is that Remington cannot both attempt to entice the unstable and insecure to buy the gun and then be shocked and deny any responsibility when the unstable person uses the gun in a way that was foreseeable IN THEIR HANDS. To be clear, by the way, the claim is not that ONLY Remington is responsible...obviously the shooter is MOST responsible. The argument is that Remington has SOME responsbility because of their enticement efforts.

Does this argument make sense? Certainly cigarette companies were punished for using cartoon characters to try to appeal to children. The cigarette companies said, "we put warnings on boxes and say that cigs are not for kids", but then at the same time, they had marketing materials where the whole effort was to get kids to think their products were cool...in the hopes that when those kids WERE old enough those kids would choose their brand of cigs.

Think like a victim and ask yourself this: If your kid was killed by a drunk driver and you found out that that moments before your kid was killed a bartender who KNEW the driver in question was an alcoholic, unable to hold their liquor etc served liquor to the driver... Now I would of course hold the driver himself MOST responsible but I sure as heck would think that the bartender should have to answer for his contributory negligence.

This particular case is complicated because of the facts that deermanok has identified involving the mother as actual owner of the gun...but the underlying logic of the case is as I outlined above.

To be candid, I probably do NOT think that Remington was culpable but I also cannot claim that I "don't understand" what the argument is.

 

[Okie Hog]

The money came from the insurance.

"Insurers have agreed to pay a massive settlement to the victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting to the dismay of the gun industry.

$73 million will be paid out by insurers of the now-defunct Remington Outdoor Company (ROC), according to a settlement announcement released on Tuesday. The settlement will also allow the release of internal Remington documents obtained during the suit."

Gun Industry Disowns $73 Million Settlement Between Defunct Remington and Sandy Hook Families | The Reload