Parkland Parents to Sue S&W

SPST

SPST

I'm With Timmy
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2016
Messages
8,406
Location
Charlotte
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Some of the Parkland parents are going to sue S&W and the LGS that sold the gun.

"Fred and Jennifer Guttenberg, and Max Schachter “seek to hold defendants legally responsible for their complicity in the entirely foreseeable, deadly use of the assault-style weapons that they place on the market,” according to the lawsuit, filed in Broward Circuit Court."

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...ting-smith-wesson-lawsuit-20180523-story.html
 
Didn't the Sandy Hook folks try this?
Didn't work out for them, don't see it working now.
Whoever the lawyer pushing this is, he should be disbarred. He's taking advantage of the emotionally distressed, knows they don't have a case, and he's still gonna get paid. Pretty much the definition of scumbag.

ETA: Goofy posted one of my thoughts as I was typing lol
 
Last edited:
'in common use'

with thousands of manufacturers and millions in circulation, good luck proving that the one used by a bad guy to kill your kids is different than the millions that havent killed anyone.
 
Last edited:
“seek to hold defendants legally responsible fortheir complicity in the entirely foreseeable, deadly use of the assault-style weapons that they place on the market,” according to the lawsuit, filed in Broward Circuit Court."


I can entirely foresee an out of control Hollywood party where some rich dude drowns some coked up wannabe in the pool.
Is the pool contractor responsible for that?

I can entirely foresee a drunk dude in Oklahoma killing his ex's new lover with a hammer.
Is Estwing responsible for that?

I can entirely foresee a teenager killing an entire family while texting and driving.
Is Ford or Apple responsible?


See how rediculous all that is?
I hate to sound hard hearted, but open your freakin eyes and plant them square on the failed school policies, failures of local law enforcement, and the failures to get treatment for a textbook example of mentally disturbed.
Put your eyes on the actual enabling factors instead of the freakin tool. Quit being little media driven punk and start asking the hard questions.
 
Hahahha, that word....foreseeable, hahahhahahaha,
Like they come with crystal balls just like this lawsuit does.... hahahhaahhaha
 
S&W should get into the being stockbrokers if they can see into the future like that.
 
Why don't they sue the FBI who were told about this kid but were too busy looking for Russians to do anything??
Why don't they sue the local cops who were told about this kid and went to his house almost 30 times investigating stuff and in the end did nothing??
Why don't they sue to coward cop who was on scene 2 minutes into a 7 minute shooting spree, stayed outside, told other arriving officers to stay outside and did nothing??? Maybe their daughter was killed 5 minutes into that spree, her death falls clearly on the coward officer. So does every death that occurred after he got on scene.

My cousin was killed by a drunk driver in a Chevy truck, can I sue Chevy???
 
Last edited:
12151791 said:
Sandy hook case was appealed and is in front of the CT Supreme Court now - I think decision is pending shortly.
Click to expand...
CT quit getting things right somewhere around the early 1800's.
This one probably ends up in front of SCOTUS at some point
 
Last edited:
draco88 said:
CT quit getting things right somewhere around the early 1800's.
This one probably ends up in front of SCOTUS at some point
Click to expand...
the “Constitution State” is really f’ed up
Their assembly and senate recently passed that their electoral voters will vote for whoever wins the popular votes regardless of who the majority of the CT voters chose in the presidential election. Oh, the irony if a Republican wins the popular vote since the CT voters will always vote for a leftist.
 
12151791 said:
the “Constitution State” is really f’ed up
Their assembly and senate recently passed that their electoral voters will vote for whoever wins the popular votes regardless of who the majority of the CT voters chose in the presidential election. Oh, the irony if a Republican wins the popular vote since the CT voters will always vote for a leftist.
Click to expand...

There will be a special legislative session called and it will be the quickest law change since ever. They'll change that law before they have to cast the electoral votes lol.
 
Can the Estate of the NC Trooper who died in a crash while on duty the other day
hold BMW responsible? The felony evading vehicle was a BMW.

I'm obese so I'm going to make Wendy's, Arby's and McD pay big time. No chance.
 
Last edited:
They could be looking for a settlement, they know they have no standing, S&W would spend a lot more for legal fees.
 
I DO blame the parents for being sucked into being gullible dupes. It must be miserable to lose a child to violence. Being miserable and stupid doesn't change the situation any.
 
Okay, I want to sue Keebler, Kraft and such for making food that has made me weigh 195lbs and then Kroger for selling it. It’s their fault I’m fat ...
 
No surprise to anyone here:
Former Obama Officials Discussed How to Politicize Sandy Hook for Gun Control Before Victims Were Buried
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...k-for-gun-control-before-victims-were-buried/
At 6:57PM EST on December 16, 2012, Duncan wrote to Emanuel in a message titled “CT shootings.”

Duncan asked the Chicago mayor, “What are your thoughts?”


Five minutes later, Emanuel responded, “Go for a vote this week before it fades. Tap peoples emotion. Make it simple assault weapons.”

Duncan responded immediately, “Yup- thanks.”

“When I did brady bill and assault weapons for clinton we always made it simple. Criminals or war weapons,” Emanuel said in the email to Duncan.

“Gun show loophole?” Duncan responded. “Database? Cop-killer bullets? Too complicated?” he said.

“Cop killer maybe,” Emanuel responded. “The other no.”

The exchange ended when Duncan concluded with, “Got it.”
 
Last edited:
Seems that a lot of state and local govs are getting into this mode...only they are suing pharmaceutical companies that produce opioids for the “opioid crisis”. What am I missing? Same concept as these families and the gun manufacturers, correct?
 
phideux said:
Why don't they sue the FBI who were told about this kid but were too busy looking for Russians to do anything??
Why don't they sue the local cops who were told about this kid and went to his house almost 30 times investigating stuff
Click to expand...
BINGO!

Not a chance in hell.
 
noway2 said:
Didn't the Sandyhook parents not only lose, but get socked with massive legal bills for the defendants?
Click to expand...
One of the girls killed at the Aurora CO. theater..God love her..her parents sued Lucky Gunner for selling the killer ammo.
They were enticed to do so by the Brady Campaign.
Not only did the Judge dismiss the case, with a verbal lashing to the Brady Campaign for using grieving parents to pursue a political agenda, he ordered the parents to pay the legal fees of Lucky Gunner.
Just slightly over $200,000..which LG donated to grass roots gun rights groups across the nation. GRNC got some of that money.
Since the parents said that it broke them financially, they declared bankruptcy.
Wonder how much of that 200K the Brady Campaign helped to pay, since it was them that instigated the whole thing.
Yeah right.
After tragically losing a daughter to an insane killer, the Brady Campaign swooped in and finished destroying the family.
 
They should have paid attention to what happened to the Sandy Hook parents who tried the same thing, and ended up having to pay a buttload of money to the manufacturer of the gun Lanza used.

PLCAA quite rightfully protects them. The kid passed the background check. Done.

If they were ever to succeed, it would set an immensely dangerous precedent. Who do we now sue for drunk driving crashes? The alcohol company? The liquor store who sold it? Or the car company? If someone is bludgeoned with a baseball bat, can the victim's family sue Louisville Slugger? If they get stabbed, sue Henckels? Where would it end? The obvious answer is it would end by bankrupting the whole country.
 
The PLCAA should pre-empt and protect S&W from this lawsuit. It did that very thing (as it was designed) in the Sandy Hook case. PLCAA was made possible with immense support from the NRA by the way.

The comment below the pic is relevant to what I'm saying, not the one at the top by Clinton:
Screen-Shot-2016-10-17-at-10.01.18-AM.png
 
Last edited:
Railsplitter said:
The PLCA should pre-empt and protect S&W from this lawsuit. It did that very thing (as it was designed) in the Sandy Hook case. PLCA was made possible with immense support from the NRA by the way.

The comment below the pic is relevant to what I'm saying, not the one at the top by Clinton:
View attachment 57330
Click to expand...

Is that one of Hildabeast’s secret scissor buddies she was messing with when Bill was dipping his stogie in Monica’s humidor?
 
NCFubar said:
Is that one of Hildabeast’s secret scissor buddies she was messing with when Bill was dipping his stogie in Monica’s humidor?
Click to expand...

Haha - that's a visual I could have done without! I'm glad I ain't had supper yet LOL.
 
Certain states have specific recourses for recouping court costs in FRIVOLOUS law suits. I do not have any idea about Florida’s statutes or such but there are other things that could come back and bite those parents besides gun specific ones ans S&W’s legal staff will be on point concerning them.
 
Can they sue the descendants of the founding fathers who wrote the 2A? Because that’s about as much sense as the rest of it makes. They should ask the Sandy Hook parents who got roped into it by the Brady folks who lost and owed $750k court costs to Lucky Gunner. And coincidentally the Brady lawyers just melted away and left the bill on the table. Same thing is going to happen
 
This is why we need a "losers lawyer pays" when frivolous lawsuits are filled.
The clients don't know the law. They are filled into thinking they have a change to win.
Current law doesn't penalize unethical lawyers who take advantage oid people this way.
But making the lawyer pay all court costs and making it illegal for them to have a client sign a waiver, should put a stop to most of these cases.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
fishgutzy said:
This is why we need a "losers lawyer pays" when frivolous lawsuits are filled.
Click to expand...

THIS^^^^^^^^^

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!! It is the only way to end the legal lottery and the legal assault on constitutional rights by incremental judicial activism.

The counter argument is that our founding fathers wanted a judiciary where all men were created equal and did not have to be wealthy to seek protection/justice from the courts. Nay sayers will hold that such a system would preempt many from seeking legal remedies they may be entitled to simply because they could not afford to lose.

The British address this through a dual system of legal counsel, solicitors who meet with clients and seek settlement/remedy by mutual agreement and Barristers who litigate in court and are most frequently hired by solicitors. In this system, solicitors are well motivated to reach settlements out of court to avoid splitting fees with barristers for litigation. There are other differences as well between the two, but this is how I have found it to work in my experience.

It could be handled far more sensibly, and without creating another class of attorney (I mean who needs that), by simply requiring attorneys to carry indemnification insurance (like doctors' malpractice insurance) should they take a case to court and lose. Insurance companies do not lose money, and thus they would become the great balancer. Attorneys who take cases and lose will pay higher premiums and be priced out of work. Those that take cases with merit and win, will flourish as will their clients. Loser pays with attorneys carrying indemnity insurance to pay the winner's legal fees would end incremental judicial activism without denying anyone their day in court.

It's only draw back is that only good attorneys would survive and that would mean more of the lazy, good for nothing, dumb attorneys running for Congress. Which is why it will never happen the stupid ones already in Congress don't want the competition.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom