I agree but Remington’s perceived culpability is really a reflection on how we view everything today – somebody has to be at fault for any tragedy, regardless of the type of occurrence, and we’re going to make them pay. What’s more, we’ll go to any extent to try & prove and/or litigate that someone else is at fault. Sadly, there is probably no turning back on this attitude.
Big mistake on Remington’s part to capitulate. That’s like having Ford pay out $33 million to the nine families if the murderer had instead driven a big scary Ford Raptor into the playground during recess and killed the same 26 kids. Why do we always seem to focus on the tool instead of the person?
Let me fix that for you: “That’s like having Ford pay out $33 million to the nine families if the murderer had instead driven a Pinto in reverse into the playground during recess and killed the same 26 kids due to the car catching fire.”
Pintos had a design defect. The defect in this case was in the head of the person that used a properly designed and manufactured product for an illegal purpose that was beyond the control of the manufacturer. The plaintiffs allege that Remington improperly marketed the firearm to a person that did not purchase the firearm.
“The plaintiffs allege that Remington improperly marketed the firearm to a person that did not purchase the firearm.”
No no no. That’s not what the suit was about. The 9 families claimed Remington praised the militaristic qualities of their rifles, in violation of Connecticut law.
The families didn’t sue because Remington marketed the gun to the owner’s child.
They sued because (they believe) Remington violated CT law when they marketed the gun having militaristic qualities which is illegal in CT.
Had Lanza not murdered his mother, she would be liable and likely would have gone to jail. She knew her kid was a psychopath and gave him a gun as a gift or something.
This was a tragic and sad event, but how can anyone blame the Remington?
I agree but Remington’s perceived culpability is really a reflection on how we view everything today – somebody has to be at fault for any tragedy, regardless of the type of occurrence, and we’re going to make them pay. What’s more, we’ll go to any extent to try & prove and/or litigate that someone else is at fault. Sadly, there is probably no turning back on this attitude.
Big mistake on Remington’s part to capitulate. That’s like having Ford pay out $33 million to the nine families if the murderer had instead driven a big scary Ford Raptor into the playground during recess and killed the same 26 kids. Why do we always seem to focus on the tool instead of the person?
Let me fix that for you: “That’s like having Ford pay out $33 million to the nine families if the murderer had instead driven a Pinto in reverse into the playground during recess and killed the same 26 kids due to the car catching fire.”
Pintos had a design defect. The defect in this case was in the head of the person that used a properly designed and manufactured product for an illegal purpose that was beyond the control of the manufacturer. The plaintiffs allege that Remington improperly marketed the firearm to a person that did not purchase the firearm.
“The plaintiffs allege that Remington improperly marketed the firearm to a person that did not purchase the firearm.”
No no no. That’s not what the suit was about. The 9 families claimed Remington praised the militaristic qualities of their rifles, in violation of Connecticut law.
The families didn’t sue because Remington marketed the gun to the owner’s child.
They sued because (they believe) Remington violated CT law when they marketed the gun having militaristic qualities which is illegal in CT.
Had Lanza not murdered his mother, she would be liable and likely would have gone to jail. She knew her kid was a psychopath and gave him a gun as a gift or something.
I read this week that Mexico filed suit against US gun manufacturers for marketing tactics that entice Mexicans to buy guns from them. (not a joke)