Sandy Hook settlement

[Dr. Keith]

The ability to quote large swathes of an act and hide your personal observations within does not mean that you know what you are talking about.

I won't respond specifically to your post because it will only encourage even bigger posts that don't add anything new to your strictly personal belief of what the law should mean.

Maybe he should look up the definition of the word “brief”, am I rite?

 

[Darat]

This is a civil case and not a criminal case.

Civil cases have to also be legal. This is a court sanctioned settlement, so it is a legal settlement that accords with the relevant law/s.

 

[casebro]

I'd still like to actually view the pertinent "advertisement" to make up my own mind whether it included "offensive purposes". I'll try Google.

Also, keep in mind that the "Remington Company" involved had gone bankrupt. It evaporated, there was no 'Remington' left to defend the lawsuit.

Has the critical CT statue been through the courts re: 1st amendment? This is a point that 'Remington' might have argued, if it hadn't evaporated.

 

[kookbreaker]

I like how some folks think they know the insurance companies’ chances better than the insurance companies.

 

[theprestige]

Civil cases have to also be legal. This is a court sanctioned settlement, so it is a legal settlement that accords with the relevant law/s.

Tangential and irrelevant. Civil cases do not decide questions of lawbreaking. Essentially, they decide questions of ethical responsibility.

If the claim were that Remington had broken some law, the case would have been a criminal case, prosecuted by the state. But that's not the claim. The claim is that even if Remington had broken no laws, its actions still imposed an ethical burden for having caused some undesired outcome.

 

[Disbelief]

I'd still like to actually view the pertinent "advertisement" to make up my own mind whether it included "offensive purposes". I'll try Google.

Also, keep in mind that the "Remington Company" involved had gone bankrupt. It evaporated, there was no 'Remington' left to defend the lawsuit.

Has the critical CT statue been through the courts re: 1st amendment? This is a point that 'Remington' might have argued, if it hadn't evaporated.

https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-guns-are-advertised-in-america-2012-12

Here is some advertising and information on how it has changed.

 

[Darat]

Doesn't seem ridiculous to me. In fact I think you both make a very good point: Publishers of objectionable ads should bear some of the responsibility for publishing the ad, alongside the advertiser who paid them for the publication.

Lots of people have lots of ideas of what the law should be. However, it's a simple fact in this case that the law doesn't agree with your "should".

In fact now I'm having a hard time imagining a scenario where a mercenary who accepted money to do evil on behalf of another wouldn't be equally complicit in the evil done.

Different circumstances, situations and general things can have different laws that apply to them, and laws don't have to be consistent across different crimes or regulations i.e. being an advertiser and a pay master or a mercenary are very different things.

 

[Darat]

Tangential and irrelevant. Civil cases do not decide questions of lawbreaking. Essentially, they decide questions of ethical responsibility.

If the claim were that Remington had broken some law, the case would have been a criminal case, prosecuted by the state. But that's not the claim. The claim is that even if Remington had broken no laws, its actions still imposed an ethical burden for having caused some undesired outcome.

Of course they can!

 

[Hercules56]

Yeah. We need to start holding cutlery manufacturers accountable for the actions of their knives, too.

Does Cuisinart advertise their butter knives to be excellent killing machines?

 

[casebro]

Does Cuisinart advertise their butter knives to be excellent killing machines?

Depictions of killing machines are OK in the hands of military or police.

Any body here actually seen/played the video game? Who carries the Remington?

 

[smartcooky]

I'd still like to actually view the pertinent "advertisement" to make up my own mind whether it included "offensive purposes". I'll try Google.

Also, keep in mind that the "Remington Company" involved had gone bankrupt. It evaporated, there was no 'Remington' left to defend the lawsuit.

Irrelevant, since their insurers were still in business. An insurer's coverage liability does not evaporate when a business goes bankrupt, especially when they go bankrupt during a proceeding against the client and when the commencement of action precedes the bankruptcy.

Therefore, the lawsuit still had to be defended. If it wasn't, a default ruling would have been made against Remington would have left the insurers paying out a lot more than the US$73m they will be paying out (usually the full amount being demanded by the plaintiffs, in this case, $102 million)

Oh, and contrary to what some here have been saying... they will be paying out. This is a settlement not a ruling. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the plaintiffs had a valid case and that the legal action was correctly allowed to proceed, there is no appeal possible here; once the Supreme Court have made its decision, its game over (no pun intended) and those families will be getting the money.... deservedly so IMO!

Has the critical CT statue been through the courts re: 1st amendment? This is a point that 'Remington' might have argued, if it hadn't evaporated.

This went to the Supreme Court, so yes.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Tangential and irrelevant. Civil cases do not decide questions of lawbreaking. Essentially, they decide questions of ethical responsibility.

If the claim were that Remington had broken some law, the case would have been a criminal case, prosecuted by the state. But that's not the claim. The claim is that even if Remington had broken no laws, its actions still imposed an ethical burden for having caused some undesired outcome.

Many civil cases are based on the contention that the defendant’s actions broke a law and the plaintiff suffered damages from those actions. There is no requirement that the defendants be prosecuted for breaking the law.

For example if a car runs a stop sign and hits another car the civil case could be huge even if the driver was never even ticketed.

 

[smartcooky]

Many civil cases are based on the contention that the defendant’s actions broke a law and the plaintiff suffered damages from those actions. There is no requirement that the defendants be prosecuted for breaking the law.

For example if a car runs a stop sign and hits another car the civil case could be huge even if the driver was never even ticketed.

And of course there is the ultimate expression of that where OJ Simpson murdered two people, was prosecuted for those murders, found not guilty or both, and yet was still successfully sued for the wrongful death of the two victims.

 

[gnome]

The important thing here is that we shift accountability away from those who actually commit the crimes. Somebody has to pay, after all...even if the perp is dead.

I think if you express that phrase unironically, you're actually hitting on something real. In cases of civil liability, I think the philosophy behind the law can often be "does someone have a duty to make the victim whole?".

It can coincide with "who has the resources to contribute to that remedy?" because often those same resources are in the hands of someone who had the power to prevent or reduce the risk of the incident in the first place. Tying liability to power/resources creates a financial incentive to take those risk and harm reducing steps. This results in a society with fewer avoidable harms.

 

[smartcooky]

I think if you express that phrase unironically, you're actually hitting on something real. In cases of civil liability, I think the philosophy behind the law can often be "does someone have a duty to make the victim whole?".

It can coincide with "who has the resources to contribute to that remedy?" because often those same resources are in the hands of someone who had the power to prevent or reduce the risk of the incident in the first place. Tying liability to power/resources creates a financial incentive to take those risk and harm reducing steps. This results in a society with fewer avoidable harms.

100% agree if you are arguing what I think you are arguing - that if entities (be they people or corporations) fail to mitigate risks to others, hit them in the pocket to motivate other entities to do so.

This can apply across a whole range of things in society from individual and group human behaviour to automotive safety to corporate responsibility (I'm thinking Boeing/MCAS here)

Most lawsuits try to hold others accountable for what they say, but they also hold them accountable for what they do.

 

[jimbob]

The topic is the Sandy Hook Settlement it is not the other posters

Such posts are likely to be rule 12 violations and/or rule 11 violations

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jimbob

 

[smartcooky]

The important thing here is that we shift accountability away from those who actually commit the crimes. Somebody has to pay, after all...even if the perp is dead.

Can you show me where accountability has been "shifted"!?

Adam Lanza was the spree shooter at Sandy Hook. He remains accountable even though he killed himself like the rank coward he was. Had he survived and stood trial, I have ZERO doubt whatsoever that the families would a still have gone after Remington in this lawsuit. The fate of Lanza would not have even entered into their thinking,

 

[psionl0]

If you disagree, please point out where it says anything in the above summary from the lawsuit (the part in italics) about the carrier of the advertisement being liable?

More to the point, you need to point out where it says that the carrier of the advertisement is immune from liability (your words excepted).

 

[gnome]

100% agree if you are arguing what I think you are arguing - that if entities (be they people or corporations) fail to mitigate risks to others, hit them in the pocket to motivate other entities to do so.

This can apply across a whole range of things in society from individual and group human behaviour to automotive safety to corporate responsibility (I'm thinking Boeing/MCAS here)

Most lawsuits try to hold others accountable for what they say, but they also hold them accountable for what they do.

Yep, that's just what I was going for.

 

[smartcooky]

More to the point, you need to point out where it says that the carrier of the advertisement is immune from liability (your words excepted).

Nope, that is not how evidence and skepticism works.

Your phrasing "immune from liability" is a transparent and futile attempt to characterize your argument as a "positive". It is not as clever as you think it is and fails rgiht at the starting gate. It also does not hide the fact that you are asking me to prove a negative.

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).

Your claim that the carrier is liable is the positive claim, so it is your burden to prove.

Here is the Connecticut Judicial Branch website, there are about 50 pages of 20 entries each (about 1,000 entries for you to get through). If you don't find one that supports your claim, your claim fails.

https://www.jud.ct.gov/Search/JudSe...v&qp=url.www.jud.ct.gov&SinglePane=Y&qt=CUTPA