What a confusing article. The headline says the retailer settled. The article said the retailer was removed from the case, and then later in the article, the article said there was a settlement. But the article is not clear as to whether the retailer was part of the settlement.
It sounds like maybe the retailer settled for a small amount to avoid legal fees. Maybe. Who knows? And if so, so what? Why is that even a headline? If the retailer settled without admitting any responsibility, the case does nothing for precedent.
Whatever. “Gun Retailers are Bad” might have been a better headline.
What a confusing article. The headline says the retailer settled. The article said the retailer was removed from the case, and then later in the article, the article said there was a settlement. But the article is not clear as to whether the retailer was part of the settlement.
It sounds like maybe the retailer settled for a small amount to avoid legal fees. Maybe. Who knows? And if so, so what? Why is that even a headline? If the retailer settled without admitting any responsibility, the case does nothing for precedent.
Whatever. “Gun Retailers are Bad” might have been a better headline.
I agree with everything you wrote, but settlements never set precedent. Only cases decided by appellate courts set precedent.
I noticed the headline changed. Hmmmmm……..