ADVERTISEMENT

Legal Opinions needed... Sandy Hook families sue Bushmaster

Well, let's be clear . . .

that there's money to be made by the drug manufacturer too. That stuff ain't cheap . . . as I can fully testify to since I'VE GOT ONE HELLUVA COLD.

*grumble*
 
You're pretty sharp when you're sick

I advise you to eat unhealthily and drink irresponsibly. : )
 
Might be the number of shootings


in churches and the evidence of how a person armed can stop them, like these two events.



The mass church shooting in Colorado Springs was stopped by the shooter being shot by a church member with a CCW permit.
New Life Church Link



Destiny Christian Center Shooting, April 24, 2012
Kiarron Parker rammed his car into another in the church parking lot, got out and attempted to kill multiple church members. He was only able to kill one before a member of the congregation, the nephew of the lady killed, and an off duty police officer, drew his handgun and shot Parker, stopping the killing.
Destiny Christian Center Shooting Link
 
Re: Let's do . . .


One of my first product liability cases (about 1980) involved a young man breathing Pam from a paper bag like sniffing glue. His heart stopped and he passed. The case was based on improper labeling ie "vegetable spray" which to most seemed harmless. Case never went to trial and the family took a negotiated settlement to help with final expenses. Over the next 30 years the law grew and expanded to cover improper/proper labeling and I see that evolution as a good thing. The problem with my case as I saw it at the time was the young had some responsibility for using the product in an unintended manner. I cannot in my own mind hold a manufacturer liable for the illegal use of their product. Foreseeable use probably - illegal activity no. I just can't justify the leap.

This post was edited on 12/16 1:43 PM by davegolf

This post was edited on 12/16 1:47 PM by davegolf
 
Please . . .

are you saying that government should intervene and require a church to allow someone to carry a gun when it's against the church's theological precepts?
 
No, the question was about

the Georgia legislative enactment and why. Those examples, and other CCW interventions in preventing or limiting mass shootings, might have been what the Georgia legislature understood as a reason for their enactment.

I'm gonna check that out. Do you know when the law was passed?
 
Here's a NYT article about it when signed by the governor . . .

Please see the link.

I was misinformed about its final version; it does not expressly require churches to allow guns, but the bill as originally drafted would have, plus apparently the lobby behind the original bill has intentions to push for changes that may include requiring churches to allow guns . . .

. . . if this is the direction of the gun rights lobby, they're gonna meet their political support limits pretty soon.

Gun rights expansion
 
Here's a link to the Georgia Act

please see lines 162 through 169. You cannot carry in a church unless the church has a policy permitting you to carry there as a licensed carry permit holder.

There are always lots of versions of legislation. What counts - as I always say in public remarks regarding legislation - is NEVER what the media reports, not is it ever an idea nor a concept.

The legislature enacts black letters on white paper and the final version of that is all that counts.

EDIT - to fix the link
This post was edited on 12/16 2:24 PM by Ladoga

GA Act
 
Only one purpose?

There are thousands of shooting competition of hundreds of kinds held all over this country. They involve millions of competitors and millions of firearms. Thousand of those are AR 15s

There are millions of hunters with hunting licenses who do so whenever their objective is in season. They shoot from near point blank to well over 1000 yards. Millions of their weapons are AR 15s.

There are dozens of thousands of folks who live in proximity to animals who would harm their livestock or property and they use dozens of thousands of weapons if needed. Tens of thousands of those weapons are AR 15s

There are tens of thousands of sports and varmint shooters who own and shoot hundreds of thousand of weapons. Tens of thousands of those weapons are AR 15s.

There are millions of people who shoot targets for sport from 25 feet to 2000 yards. Millions of their weapons are AR 15s.

None of those things listed involved killing humans, though you think that is the only thing they can be used for?

You understand even less than the media mouthpieces campaigning to control guns. You should delete or edit your post to reflect the reality of this world.
 
So, what are you saying?

I say gun manufacturers are not responsible.
You seem to say congress is not.
Should schools be responsible because they did not "effectively" taught the children the evils of killing?
Should churches be responsible for the same reason?
Parents?
Republicans?
Democrats?

Ah, it must be Obama! Of course, why didn't I think of that?
 
Right, but you missed my point...

Even tougher standards doesn't mean evil Adam wouldn't have found another method to: A) obtain the firearms automatically or B) use another weapon (e.g. bomb).

So then, where does the blame fall?
 
I'm not sure why you are getting so angry

I'm suggesting the individuals are the ones at fault. Unless you don't believe it is a choice to murder dozens of innocent children in cold blood.

No question there is some blame for gun manufacturers, Congress, the guy's parents/family, his doctors (I find it hard to believe he was mentally stable), etc. But, at the end of the day, they cannot always stop him.
 
So why isn't Rolex held responsible?

Your first sentence had me. But, shouldn't a Rolex have an embedded GPS tracker, alarm or some other mechanism to protect against theft? Wouldn't it be foreseeable that it would be a target, whether you left it on a towel or it was stolen in a quick robbery?

I'm trying to delineate between my Nyquil example and the Rolex, based on logic.

This post was edited on 12/16 3:40 PM by mjvcaj
 
Can you clarify?

I think it should be held liable, in the case of someone that mistakenly or innocently encounters some issue.

If someone makes a choice to use the drug for non-symptomatic purposes (e.g. get a high, make meth, etc.) then no, I do not see why Vick's would be held liable for someone's poor choice(s).

Couldn't the defense easily argue that someone using Nyquil as a recreational drug would likely have obtained another substance that renders a similar effect through other means?
 
Angry? Am I angry? For God's sake,

I was supporting your thesis that the gun manufacturers are not responsible for the atrocities.

While it is true that they made guns that were/are used for killing, it is the responsibility of the congress to stop it. That is not an angry statement, is it?

I also agree with you that the blame goes to others such as parents, family, churches, political parties, etc. That also is not an angry statement. It is the statement of fact, not an angry statement.

Unfortunately, there are civic, religious, and political groups to demonize those who try to lessen the violence. Now, that is an angry statement that you can have.
 
Perhaps because watches don't kill people

The dangerousness of the consequences informs the reasonableness of the actions.
 
If unintended uses are foreseeable . . .

Then manufacturers must take reasonable measures to prevent the foreseeable misuse of their products. (The hornbook case on foreseeability and proximate cause is Palsgraf.) More fundamentally, the strict liability of product manufacturers arises from economic efficiency. It centralizes social costs onto the manufacturers themselves, who can best respond and adapt to these costs, perhaps by incorporating them into the price of their products. In this way the law seeks to internalize externalities.
 
It doesn't matter whether the intended use . . .

is the use that a product is actually used for, if the actual use is foreseeable and the consequences are significant enough.

It's the foreseeability of the harm, not the intentions of the user, that determine liability.

In the gun case, it is all but certain that the gun designed to assault and kill human beings rapidly will be used to kill large numbers of innocent persons. That someone decided to do so through committing a crime is just as certain.

So it's not intent that determines liability, it's the foreseeability of the harm resulting from the dangerousness of the product as distributed by the manufacturer.
 
Until I know enough facts . . .

on which to determine whether a manufacturer acted reasonably to prevent foreseeable harm, I won't have enough information to answer that question.

There is no blanket yes/no on this, and there shouldn't be. Each act/failure to act needs to be judged in the context of the circumstances in which the act/failure to act occurs.

And there can be more than one place to lay blame . . . that's really the point.
 
I really don't think that's fair.

Tort reform falls outside of the left/right spectrum. It's money vs. non-money more than anything.

Liberalism does not favor legislative usurpation of judicial discretion.

goat
 
His position is as illogical as his posting style.

If killing people was it's only purpose, a lot of people, including me have been using them wrong for a long, long, time! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

outside shooter

Families of Sandy Hook victims reach $73 million settlement with Remington

Replies
19
Views
2K
The Water Cooler
mcmurtry66
M
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back