Sandy Hook settlement

[psionl0]

Nope, that is not how evidence and skepticism works.

So the burden is to prove you wrong regardless of how good or bad your argument is? It doesn't work that way.

What is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence and you are already admitting that your evidence is defective:

The reality is that the Connecticut law is not silent on the liability of advertisers, but it is very much silent on the liability of carriers of advertisements, and it will remain so until or, if, an attempt is made to prosecute or sue a carrier under the act, and a court makes a determination and sets a precedent (that is how laws and courts work).

This is different from the countless posts you have made claiming that the carrier is not liable.

The fact is you can't say that a carrier has no liability in these cases. That is up to the courts to decide and so far (it appears) that question hasn't been put before them.

 

[smartcooky]

So the burden is to prove you wrong regardless of how good or bad your argument is?

Wrong

I'm not the one making the claim, you are. I have stated the null, the way things are now... that the law is silent on the liability of carriers. I have linked this law several times, it is up to you to read it - Its not my job to spoon-feed you.

What you are trying to do here is switch the burden of proof onto me using a bogus attempt turn a negative claim into a positive claim. That is very dishonest

What is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence

Correct: You are asserting without evidence, that carriers are liable under CGS § 42-110a et seq, so I am rejecting your assertion, without evidence

This is different from the countless posts you have made claiming that the carrier is not liable.

You're lying again. I have never asserted that the carrier is immune from liability. That is a terminology YOU pulled out of your nether regions. All, I have ever said is that they are not liable, because the law does not say they are liable.

The fact is you can't say that a carrier has no liability in these cases.

The fact is, I can say that and I have, and furthermore, there is 49 years of no-precedent to back that up. If you disagree, it is up to you to find a case and prove me wrong.

That is up to the courts to decide and so far (it appears) that question hasn't been put before them.

They won't because there is nothing in the written word of law that would support a case being put before them.

You claim is summarily dismissed because you refuse to defend it with evidence.

 

[psionl0]

You're lying again. I have never asserted that the carrier is immune from liability.

The fact is, I can say that [a carrier has no liability in these cases] and I have,

Make up your mind.

You are just having an each way bet and pretending that the word "immunity" makes all the difference (it doesn't).

 

[smartcooky]

Make up your mind.

You are just having an each way bet and pretending that the word "immunity" makes all the difference (it doesn't).

You are claiming that I have been saying the game manufacturer is immune from liability. That is a bare-faced lie - I have said no such thing. I have been saying all along that the game manufacturer has NO liability, NOT that they are immune from liability, and no, that is not "having a bet each way". "Immunity from liability" and "No liability" are not the same thing in law and this is not a distinction without a difference - they are different things that have different meanings.

A lawsuit requires that a Complaint be filed, containing, among other things, the factual allegations and a statement of law that explains the causes of action. Then there is Discovery, where both sides must, on request, allow the other to examine all the relevant facts and evidence. These are followed by the Trial which will result in a Verdict

"No liability" is not defined in a State or Federal statute. Unless the law specifically states that a group has liability, then "No liability" is the default. This default can only be overturned if the Lawsuit advances beyond the complaint stage, to a stage where a court will have to make a decision on the merits or otherwise of the lawsuit.

"Immunity from liability” MUST be defined in a State or Federal statute and results in a lawsuit not being allowed to advance beyond the complaint stage. The judge MUST summarily dismiss the Lawsuit.. he/she has no other choice.

If you don't believe me, believe a law firm who will explain it. This link deals with medical and mental health practice, but the principles are the same...

https://www.cphins.com/immunity-from-liability-vs-no-liability/

 

[rockinkt]

This sounds like a pretty straight forward slam dunk for the plaintiffs:

While the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act grants firearms makers immunity from product liability, the plaintiffs argued that law did not apply. Instead, they focused on Remington’s “aggressive and violence-glorifying marketing” of its AR-15s as an unfair trade practice and a violation of Connecticut law. The legal strategy sought to uncover how Remington marketed the AR-15 to “young, violence-prone men.”

Furthermore:

They claim that the company, driven by parent private equity firm Cerberus, put profits over public safety and changed its previous approach to marketing firearms in favor of an “aggressive, multi-media campaign that pushed sales of AR-15s through product placement in first-person shooter video games and by touting the AR-15’s effectiveness as a killing machine.”
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2022/02/17/654731.htm

I'm willing to bet the settlement would have been higher if Remington was still in business.

 

[Darat]

...snip..

I'm willing to bet the settlement would have been higher if Remington was still in business.

It would still have been the insurance companies paying out (or their underwriters) so perhaps not.

 

[psionl0]

I have been saying all along that the game manufacturer has NO liability, NOT that they are immune from liability, and no, that is not "having a bet each way".

ftfy. It's the same difference.

 

[Babbylonian]

ftfy. It's the same difference.

No, it's not. I can claim I'm not liable for someone slipping and falling on my sidewalk and it may be true. That does not mean that I'm immune from liability for anyone slipping and falling on my sidewalk unless there is a law specifically granting that immunity.

 

[smartcooky]

No, it's not. I can claim I'm not liable for someone slipping and falling on my sidewalk and it may be true. That does not mean that I'm immune from liability for anyone slipping and falling on my sidewalk unless there is a law specifically granting that immunity.

This.

 

[smartcooky]

ftfy. It's the same a big difference.

ftfy.

You've had documentary evidence presented to you that clearly shows you are wrong. You haven't be able to refute any it, so now you resort to sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "....la la la la la"

You have not supported any of your claims with evidence, so they are hereby summarily dismissed.

 

[smartcooky]

This sounds like a pretty straight forward slam dunk for the plaintiffs:

While the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act grants firearms makers immunity from product liability, the plaintiffs argued that law did not apply. Instead, they focused on Remington’s “aggressive and violence-glorifying marketing” of its AR-15s as an unfair trade practice and a violation of Connecticut law. The legal strategy sought to uncover how Remington marketed the AR-15 to “young, violence-prone men.”

Furthermore:

They claim that the company, driven by parent private equity firm Cerberus, put profits over public safety and changed its previous approach to marketing firearms in favor of an “aggressive, multi-media campaign that pushed sales of AR-15s through product placement in first-person shooter video games and by touting the AR-15’s effectiveness as a killing machine.”
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2022/02/17/654731.htm

I'm willing to bet the settlement would have been higher if Remington was still in business.

Even still in business, Remington were not worth much more than $73M. They were not the $1Bn sales company they used to be. Vista Outdoor bought the largest part of Remington's assets for $81.4m, Sierra Bullets bought part of their ammunition business for $30.5m, and Storm Ruger bought another part of the business for $30m. The factory was sold to Roundhill Group for $13m.

All up that's about $155m, and there is no way that all of that would have gone to the plaintiffs because there were still other unsecured creditors yet to be paid. The plaintiffs earlier filed a motion with the bankruptcy court to prevent the bankruptcy from proceeding, claiming that Remington was trying to use it to get out of the lawsuit. The judge overseeing the bankruptcy ruled, in effect, that the litigants could not be excluded or made to follow a different path from other unsecured creditors, effectively allowing the lawsuit to continue, and reserving a portion of the pool of assets for the families should they have been successful.

https://www.reuters.com/article/ban...-sandy-hook-families-judge-says-idUSL1N2L701E

 

[sarge]

It would still have been the insurance companies paying out (or their underwriters) so perhaps not.

Had it gone to trial, the award may have been higher, but without the guarantee of payment that this settlement with the insurance company provides. Once Remington successfully entered bankruptcy, a settlement with the insurance companies that included a cash payment close to the limits of the liability coverage was as good as the plaintiffs could do.

 

[smartcooky]

Had it gone to trial, the award may have been higher, but without the guarantee of payment that this settlement with the insurance company provides. Once Remington successfully entered bankruptcy, a settlement with the insurance companies that included a cash payment close to the limits of the liability coverage was as good as the plaintiffs could do.

Keep in mind too that the plaintiffs were asking for $102m so the payout was never going to be more than that anyway. In the end they got $73m, over 70% of what they wanted. Settlements (at least the ones not covered by an NDA) rarely result in more than half the asking payout.

 

[Trebuchet]

Keep in mind too that the plaintiffs were asking for $102m so the payout was never going to be more than that anyway. In the end they got $73m, over 70% of what they wanted. Settlements (at least the ones not covered by an NDA) rarely result in more than half the asking payout.

And it's extremely unlikely to be paid in a lump sum. It'll be a "structured settlement, paid over a period of 20 years or more. Unless they call J.G. Wentworth, 877-cash-now!

 

[casebro]

And it's extremely unlikely to be paid in a lump sum. It'll be a "structured settlement, paid over a period of 20 years or more. Unless they call J.G. Wentworth, 877-cash-now!

That depends on the terms negotiated.

 

[casebro]

I'd still like to see the evidence. Just how did Remington market it for murderers?

 

[psionl0]

You have not supported any of your claims with evidence, so they are hereby summarily dismissed.

You have not been able to show anything in the law that says that carriers have no liability for the ads they permit to be hosted. You are fixating on the word "immune" because the fact is you have nothing.

Your claims are summarily dismissed.

 

[smartcooky]

You have not been able to show anything in the law that says that carriers have no liability for the ads they permit to be hosted. You are fixating on the word "immune" because the fact is you have nothing.

I have shown you the law. If you bother to read it for yourself (and you clearly have not) you can see for yourself that liability for advertisers is specified, and that liability for carriers is not, therefore, the law is silent in carrier liability, and when the law is silent on liability, there is no liability. That is how laws work.

You have chosen to ignore the evidence I have provided... that's YP

Your entire argument is based, as usual, on pointless quibbling over words, and I now remind you that it was YOU who brought up the term "immune from liability", and now you're getting all pissy when I use your own BS to slam-dunk your arse and hand it so you.

I also remind you that YOU are the one who has been claiming that the carrier had liability... your claim, your burden.

In the absence of supporting evidence, your claim is summarily dismissed.

 

[smartcooky]

I'd still like to see the evidence.

You might have to get a copy of the 2011/12 version of "Call of Duty" I guess

Just how did Remington market it for murderers?

Newtown mass shooter Adam Lanza epitomized the buyers wooed by the ad campaign mounted for the Bushmaster AR-15, a lawyer insisted Tuesday before Connecticut's highest court.

Weapons manufacturer Remington Arms "had been courting (Lanza) for years," attorney Josh Koskoff, who represents some of the school massacre victims' families, charged inside a jam-packed Hartford hearing.

"It wasn't just that they marketed the weapon looking for people with the characteristics of Adam Lanza. It's that Adam Lanza heard the message, and was driven specifically to the Bushmaster for his weapon for this combat mission."

Koskoff noted the assault rifle was touted as the must-have weapon for any firefight, boasting that opponents were "single-handedly outnumbered" by an owner toting an AR-15.
"Forces of opposition, bow down" was another marketing tag line for the particularly lethal weapon, as was "consider your man card reissued."
Speaking outside court, Koskoff said the marketing scheme created by Remington indicated the lack of a moral compass within the company — and its management should be held responsible.

"What kind of society do we live in if the manufacturer has no skin in the game?" asked Koskoff. "What we have here is the conduct of a company that thought it was above the law."
​

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/na...-blame-sandy-hook-ar-15-ads-article-1.3632565

 

[psionl0]

I have shown you the law.

Yes and as you finally admitted, the law doesn't mention carriers. Only in your fevered imagination does something have to have a law about it before somebody can be sued.

I also remind you that YOU are the one who has been claiming that the carrier had liability... your claim, your burden.

As usual you are projecting again. I remind you that YOU are the one who has been claiming that the carrier has NO liability... your claim, your burden.