Sandy Hook settlement

[smartcooky]

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

Not sure where to put this. I didn't think it needed its own thread, and I can't find a general thread about Sandy Hook. If mods can think of a better pace, please move it.

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/15/1080819088/sandy-hook-victims-families-settlement-remington

"These nine families have shared a single goal from the very beginning: to do whatever they could to help prevent the next Sandy Hook. It is hard to imagine an outcome that better accomplishes that goal," said Josh Koskoff, an attorney for the victims' families, in a statement on Tuesday.

According to Koskoff's law firm, Remington's four insurers have all agreed to pay the full amount of coverage available, which is the $73 million total. The gun-maker filed for bankruptcy in 2020, and its assets were sold off."​

President Joe Biden recognized the "perseverance of nine families who turned tragedy into action."

"They have demonstrated that state and city consumer protection laws – like Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act – provide an opportunity to hold gun manufacturers and dealers accountable for wrongdoing despite the persistence of the federal immunity shield for these companies," Biden said in a statement.

The president also urged state and local lawmakers, lawyers and survivors of gun violence "to pursue efforts to replicate the success of the Sandy Hook families."
"Together, we can deliver a clear message to gun manufacturers and dealers: they must either change their business models to be part of the solution for the gun violence epidemic, or they will bear the financial cost of their complicity," he said​

 

[Warp12]

Do you ever have a clue what you're talking about? What do you think the word "settlement" means? It means that REMINGTON HAS AGREED TO PAY THEM AND THEIR LAWYERS $73 MILLION DOLLARS! This is not a verdict to be appealed. Once again, REMINGTON HAS AGREED TO PAY THEM AND THEIR LAWYERS $73 MILLION DOLLARS! Period! End of case! Here's a tip: Try reading the posted link before you blather!

Seems like the insurance companies footed this bill, not Remington (they had already went bankrupt):

The $73 million settlement is all of the available coverage that Remington's insurance carriers could pay, the plaintiffs' attorneys said.

More on Remington:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Arms

 

[Warp12]

Not sure where to put this. I didn't think it needed its own thread, and I can't find a general thread about Sandy Hook. If mods can think of a better pace, please move it.
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/15/1080819088/sandy-hook-victims-families-settlement-remington

"These nine families have shared a single goal from the very beginning: to do whatever they could to help prevent the next Sandy Hook. It is hard to imagine an outcome that better accomplishes that goal," said Josh Koskoff, an attorney for the victims' families, in a statement on Tuesday.

According to Koskoff's law firm, Remington's four insurers have all agreed to pay the full amount of coverage available, which is the $73 million total. The gun-maker filed for bankruptcy in 2020, and its assets were sold off."​

President Joe Biden recognized the "perseverance of nine families who turned tragedy into action."

"They have demonstrated that state and city consumer protection laws – like Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act – provide an opportunity to hold gun manufacturers and dealers accountable for wrongdoing despite the persistence of the federal immunity shield for these companies," Biden said in a statement.

The president also urged state and local lawmakers, lawyers and survivors of gun violence "to pursue efforts to replicate the success of the Sandy Hook families."
"Together, we can deliver a clear message to gun manufacturers and dealers: they must either change their business models to be part of the solution for the gun violence epidemic, or they will bear the financial cost of their complicity," he said​

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=356983

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, to be fair, Modified versions of the AR 15 have been the US military's standard rifle since the mid 1960's.

Modified in the sense of being closer to the original ar-15.

 

[casebro]

Well, to be fair, Modified versions of the AR 15 have been the US military's standard rifle since the mid 1960's.

....and the most popular rifle sold in America for the last decades. Multi-millions of them out there from hundreds of makers.

 

[Dr.Sid]

I don't understand .. is it voluntary or did the court decided ? Settlement sound like voluntary.

 

[psionl0]

I'm not sure how comfortable I am with this settlement.

It's basically saying that Americans are so stupid that they can't distinguish between reality and a video game.

Just a further question: Why does Remington pay the entire damages bill while the purveyors of the video game get off scott free?

 

[ponderingturtle]

But with the increase in sales from being associated with the mass killing does this count as a successful marketing campaign? People love guns that get used in mass murder like sandy hook.

 

[casebro]

and those four insurance companies are going to raise YOUR car insurance to re-coup their pay-out. Even if you are an anti-gun Librul driving a Prius. Hahahah.

 

[smartcooky]

and those four insurance companies are going to raise YOUR car insurance to re-coup their pay-out. Even if you are an anti-gun Librul driving a Prius. Hahahah.

Wrong!

Ironshore Inc. provides broker-sourced speciality property and casualty insurance.

James River Insurance is a commercial customer and public liability insurer.

Chubb Insurance is a business insurance company specialising in travel, commercial property and package insurance

Swiss Re Insurance is a commercial and business insurer specializing in reinsurance, and digital insurance.

Firstly, only one of these companies (James River) even have a private vehicle insurance division.

Secondly, insurance companies do not spread the risk over various divisions. Each division is required to make a profit in its own right, they are not going to allow their revenue to be shared among other divisions. Insurance company vehicle divisions, and specialist vehicle insurers set their premiums based on various aspects of vehicle operating risks such as;

- the likelihood of theft
- the age of the owner/driver
- age and make of the vehicle
- the locality where the vehicle of operated

The premiums for car insurance will not be affected due to these settlement payouts because illegal advertising of guns that contributes to the slaughter of grade school children has nothing to do with the risks involved in operating a private car.

 

[smartcooky]

Just a further question: Why does Remington pay the entire damages bill while the purveyors of the video game get off scott free?

Because Remington were the advertisers and therefore it was they who broke the state law (the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act).

 

[cmikes]

Does this set a precedent? Can the Waukesha families file a lawsuit against whoever manufactured the SUV that Darrel Brooks was driving?

 

[smartcooky]

Does this set a precedent? Can the Waukesha families file a lawsuit against whoever manufactured the SUV that Darrel Brooks was driving?

Only if Ford advertised their Explorer model as good for running people down and using it as a ramming weapon against people in crowds.

 

[psionl0]

Because Remington were the advertisers and therefore it was they who broke the state law (the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act).

Since you purport to be an expert in Connecticut law I will have to take your word for it.

Elsewhere, media providers can be held liable for the content that others put on their medium if they don't block or remove that content and I haven't seen any evidence that Remington consented to nor requested that their AR-15 be used or described that way in the video game.

Only if Ford advertised their Explorer model as good for running people down and using it as a ramming weapon against people in crowds.

. . . or a video game makes that claim?

 

[smartcooky]

Since you purport to be an expert in Connecticut law I will have to take your word for it.

I make no claim to be an expert in Connectcut Law, its just that I can read, and comprehend what I read....

Remington violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUPTA), Conn. Gen. Stat. 42-110a et seq., by marketing the firearm to civilians for criminal purposes and that those wrongful marketing tactics contributed to the massacre.
Adam Lanza carried out the [Sandy Hook] massacre using a Remington Bushmaster XM15-E2S. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment that most of Plaintiffs’ claims were precluded by established Connecticut law and/or PLCAA. However, as to Plaintiffs’ claims that Defendants knowingly marketed, advertised, and promoted the XM15-E2S for civilians to use to carry out offensive, military style combat missions, the Supreme Court held that Plaintiffs pleaded allegations sufficient to survive a motion to strike because (1) PLCAA does not bar Plaintiffs’ wrongful marketing claims; and (2) to the extent that it prohibits the unethical advertising of dangerous products for illegal purposes, CUTPA qualifies as a predicate statute.

Elsewhere, media providers can be held liable for the content that others put on their medium if they don't block or remove that content.

Yeah, like Australia, and that is completely unjust... its shooting the messenger instead of the person sending the message.

. . . or a video game makes that claim?

If only it was that simple.

Keep in mind that the AR-15 is designed for one purpose, and one purpose only... for killing people; as many of them as possible in the shortest amount of time. It is all but useless as a hunting weapon, and its not accurate or reliable enough to be a sport target weapon.

It is the height of stupidity to advertise your people killer product in a FPS video game where the object is killing as many people as possible, and where the game is marketed predominantly to gun-loving, at risk young males who fantasize about killing people. This is obvious to anyone who isn't stupid beyond description.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Elsewhere, media providers can be held liable for the content that others put on their medium if they don't block or remove that content and I haven't seen any evidence that Remington consented to nor requested that their AR-15 be used or described that way in the video game.

Somewhere along the line, Remington must have given permission to use their trademark. If they didn't do due diligence on how their product was portrayed, most people would consider that to be negligence on their part.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Just a further question: Why does Remington pay the entire damages bill while the purveyors of the video game get off scott free?

not that it matters, but no study claiming that playing violent video games lead to more violence being used can be reproduced.

 

[Dr.Sid]

not that it matters, but no study claiming that playing violent video games lead to more violence being used can be reproduced.

Who needs study ? Is there a study that advertisement can lead to violence ?

 

[psionl0]

Somewhere along the line, Remington must have given permission to use their trademark. If they didn't do due diligence on how their product was portrayed, most people would consider that to be negligence on their part.

That doesn't explain why those who designed and marketed a video game whose objective is to kill as many people as possible got off scott free.

Maybe the video game designers didn't have as much insurance as Remington?

 

[arthwollipot]

That doesn't explain why those who designed and marketed a video game whose objective is to kill as many people as possible got off scott free.

Maybe the video game designers didn't have as much insurance as Remington?

Well, no, because no video game has been demonstrated to be conclusively linked to violence.

Ever.