I saw a report that indicated some of the families that the D.C. snipers killed are suing the company that makes the gun used in the killings. While I defiantly feel sorry for the victims and their families, I do not think this lawsuit is right. I understand there a lot of people out there that may disagree.

I have heard from others, concerning this subject, who insert that without the gun the killers would not have been able to do what they had done. That is to say shoot someone from such a distance with such accuracy. While I agree this may be true, the gun manufacturer did not pull the trigger.

If you are to follow that line of reasoning, you must also blame the military, which I believe trained one of the shooters. You might then also blame the car manufacturer who made the van they where driving and so on.

I believe the shooters should pay for what they have done but I do not blame the gun.

Just my [img]graemlins/2cents.gif[/img]

I would like to hear other people’s opinions, however if this is an old topic and no one wishes to comment I understand.

They are NEVER gonna win this lawsuit.

Never say never in Lawsuit land, Johnny... there have been strange outcomes to such cases before.

Of course it's an inanimate objects fault. The preps were just harmless little pople when the gun forced them to go around shooting the country side. The real problem...too many lawyers with nothing to do.

Nah,it's not the guns fault,it doesnt pull the trigger.The shooters decided to do so and they are the guilty ones.Those families (I feel sad what has happened of course,it is unfair that something like that happens) can never win the lawsuit.

Hey.. if the company has to pay for making them.. then the goverment will have to do the same thing for allowing these company's to sell them. Which will lead to... (you get the picture)

Well, first I must say that these lawyers are swill. The reason they name such defendants in a lawsuit is: (1) hope for a settlement - some will pay nuisance value to make you go away, (2) cover their asses, cause if they sue other folks who may be liable, those folks will insist on dragging everyone who ever even *talked* to the snipers into the suit (spread the loss, of course) - note that # 2 probably isn't applicable here.

Now, I bet they're suing on a products theory, which would assert something to the effect:
1. The product was being used for its intended purpose;
2. it was foreseeable the product could be used in the fashion it was being used;
3. There was some defect in the product - either in its design or labelling/warning (this case, I would assume they would attack the design);
4. That there would be no deaths BUT FOR the gun; and
5. the gun was the actual cause of the deaths.

Also, they'll liikely sue for Negligence, asserting the gun maker:
1. Had some sort of a "duty" to the victims;
2. That it "breached" the duty in some fashion;
3. That its breach of the duty was the actual cause of the harm;
4. That the harm resulting from the breach was foreseeable; and
5. That there was harm done (i.e. deaths).

Just some FYI folks. You can see that they have a very hard case indeed trying to pigeonhole their notion into a legal theory.

Ooookaaaay. If that gun firm hadn't produced the guns, then a different one would have. How pointless is that? Are they looking for someone to blame APART from the actual snipers? If so, why exactly?
Sorry if I sound a bit heartless, I may be wrong 'cos I've never lost anyone close to me, and I hate to think about that. But the real perpetrators have been caught. Why want more?

I don't blame the gun. I blame the bullets. Guns don't kill people, bullets do.

But without the gun the bullets couldn't have been fired...

Shut up, B**ch, I ain't gonna shoot you,
I'm gonna pull you to this bullet and put it through you.

-Eminem

Guess it is the bullets to blame, then, huh. :D :D

But without the gun the bullets couldn't have been fired...</font>[/QUOTE]And without the bullets the gun is only useful for beating a dead horse [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Because the snipers are what's called "judgment-proof" (i.e. poor). Can't get blood from a stone. And, the families have sought lawyers asking something any one of us would - "I know these guys will go to jail, but can I sue somebody for money for my lost loved one?"

I wonder what their motive is.
Respect for the dead.. or money?

The motive for this is simple greed, and as far as I'm concerned the courts should slap this down before it even gets through the preliminaries.

Now this doesn't exactly apply to this situation, but there's a saying I remember from growing up: "A thief is shot in the night; who's finger is on the trigger?"

Everyone (except the canadian anti-gun politicians, of course) knows the answer to this riddle is "The thiefs". The thief entered into the situation with both eyes open and has noone but himself to blame for getting shot at while doing a b&e. Likewise, these families have noone to blame but the snipers...

So, Sir Krustin, the answer is simply "too bad?" "Look, we know your husband and the father of your children is dead, and you have lost your only means of income, but it's no one's fault but these criminals - so just suck it up like a good American, okay." :(

Perhaps that *is* the answer. Perhaps these families have no recourse. I sure wish they did though. Why can't rich f-ers be the ones to commit crimes? Like OJ - he won his criminal trial and then had EVERYTHING taken from him in the civil trial.

Lmao never would of thought Timber of all people would be a Eminem fan (well if hes not even to know the lyrics is suprising). Anyway its not the guns fault or the makers of the guns fault. For somereason *money seems to heal all wounds* [img]graemlins/headshake.gif[/img]

Basically correct - like you said, the gun company has money so that makes them a target.

The wage-earner could just as easily died in a landslide or a freak accident at work, and the result would be just as devastating to the family.

Looking for a scapegoat doesn't solve *any* of the problems, and allowing the lawsuit to succeed out of sympathy for the family's predicament just sets a precedent for other greedy people to do the same.

Lawsuits are for legitimate beefs, and what I call fivolous lawsuits are ruining the states, and rapidly becoming a problem up here as well.

Look at civil aviation, it died a quiet death in the seventies because people died in aircraft accidents, and the victims families sued the aircraft manufacturers for the deaths - even when the crash was plainly the result of pilot incompetence or lack of maintenance. You know what? The lawsuits succeeded! Simply put, there was no way to prove a negative - the aircraft manufacturers couldn't prove that there wasn't a hidden manufacturing defect responsible for the crash - after all the aircraft is now a mangled piece of wreckage.

This is why you can only really buy private aircraft in kits that you build yourself (with the exception of very expensive Lears and Gulfstreams, of course)
so the kit manufacturer can decline responsibility for the airworthiness of the airframe.

Lmao never would of thought Timber of all people would be a Eminem fan (well if hes not even to know the lyrics is suprising). Anyway its not the guns fault or the makers of the guns fault. For somereason *money seems to heal all wounds* [img]graemlins/headshake.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]You'd be surprised how much I find in common with a whiteboy scrawny foulmouthed trailer park trash punk who cut his teeth on rap music in high school and still occassionally succumbs to wilding out and being violent, catching a good old fashioned passionate ass whoopin and getting your shoes coat and your hat tooken. :D

Sir Krustin, my firm has a rather decent aviation law practice, so I know what you mean.

One nit-picky point: had he (our hypothetical sniper victim) died in a landslide at work, worker's comp would give the widow income.

What about the $$$$ given to victims of 9/11. Do you folks support that? If so, would something similar be appropriate for the sniper victims? In case you didn't know, in most cities/states if you are a victim of violent crime and can't afford medical care a state fund covers it for you.

Nobody wants to accept the fact that bad things happen to good people, and sometimes there is no blame or recourse. It goes along with societies' inability to cope with death. Couple that with this greedy, litigeous, lottery mentality nation and .... oh boy!

One bad thing I will say about Capitolism - EVERYTHING is for sale, even your soul. There is only so much wealth, not everyone can be wealthy.

I thought is was appalling. Charity is nice, but some of those caught in the WTC were well to do on their own. That money could have been better spent on needy people. AND THE FED GOV IS NOT A CHARITY! Tax dollars should never go to something like that. Rebuilding the infrastructure that was destroyed in NYC, sure, but not sympathy funds.

I would like to know how much charity money has been raised since for other needy people, not just "victims of [insert publically covered disaster]". I'm betting very low amounts.

Great posts, Night Stalker. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

I just hope I get better life insurance before I happen to get hit by a bus, better Renter's Insurance before the people on the 14th floor (directly above) flood me, etc, etc. Oh, wait, all those insurance bastards do is deny, deny, deny. :(

Truly, though, I agree that it's not society's responsibility to cover everyone's bad luck.

I heard a similar "sue story" concerning the UK and another country over landmines.

Listen to me brother, if anyone ever makes that stick then the rest of the world will be suing China for inventing gunpowder.....They won't get paid.

[ 01-16-2003, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: Charlie ]

thats absolute poppycock, and a waste of precious judicial resources that could be better used elsewhere, such as keeping OJ off the streets. I feel for the victims and their families but this is completely frivolous and should be thrown out of court

DON'T get me started on insurance companies right now TL! I live in NJ! The greedy thieving &$@$!&&*!&!^#^!#^*&&*!#^#!#$@##^&*! [img]graemlins/madhell.gif[/img] I would not be supprised that a Sopprano was a board member of one of the major insurance co.s.

Incidentally, who do you sue? The gunmaker, the bullet maker, the gunpowder producer, the shellmaker, the man who sold the gun, the man who sold the metal that made the gun...

A gun has saved many a mans life, as has a sword a longbow...whatever. Obviously in the wrong hands and at the wrong time, well history speaks for itself.

I see a lot of people share my views in this matter.

I agree that governments are not a charity. Too many people (esp. here in Canada) expect a handout from the government whenever they need money. NEWS FLASH PEOPLE - Everything the government spends has to be taxed out of the public! There are more efficient ways to help people than use the government.

If the government decides to help, they should at least exempt those that don't need it and make sure that people that DO need it, get it promptly.

Government exists to:
1)Defend national borders,
2) settle disputes with a courts/policing system, and
3)Be the protector of individual rights - not be the prime violator of said rights.

Apperently tha lawsuit is against both the store that sold the gun and the manefacturer that sold it to the store.

The argument is that the store should not have sold the rifle, becauce the sniper (can't remember the name) was prohibited from buying due to a prior conviction - and that the manefacturer shouldn't have sold it to the store, because the store was known for selling firearms to people who wasn't allowed to buy them (it was fined by the Federal Government).

So I won't say that the families don't have a chance of winning - they are just using 'The American Way' :rolleyes: ;)

Well, Ar-Cunin, knowing those facts they may have a fair lawsuit, and fairly so if you ask me. Selling guns to a convicted felon? D'Oh!
[img]graemlins/homer.gif[/img]

I was not aware of these facts. I agree that the store should be help accountable if it turns out that they knew the man was not supposed to purchase firearms.

I still do not believe that the manufacturer is responsible. If the store was known for selling firearms to felons than the state should have closed it down. It is not the responsibility of the manufacturer to regulate their customers, is it?

<font color=lime>If Ar-Cunan has the facts correct (not much mentioned about it here in the DC area yet..amazingly enough, just some quick blurbs between commercials) then the store should be sued and the manufacturer ...IF... they knew or had some way of knowing about the convictions (which I never heard that either of the defendants had prior records).

This will cause a problem however, any car dealer who sells a car to someone who ever had a DUI in his life is gonna get sued. Any electrical appliance company will be sued the minuted someone bashes their spouse over the head with one, because currently there is no label stating "Danger, high speed impacts to a cranium can be fatal"......

I still think the two or three families are only in it for greed and not for the merits of the case. They want $$$$ just like the family of the DC postal worker who died of Anthrax, My company settled that case just to limit the legal expenses.</font>

MagiK, I think your analogy to car dealers and electrical appliances is faulty. The law requires background checks for gun purchases and prohibits the sale of firearms to convicted felons - a very different circumstance indeed.

[edit:] I know what you're doing here. You're agree that in this situation the store could be at fault, but you don't want to set a general rule and "open the floodgates" to other circumstances unimagined at the current moment. I agree with that approach - and I'm just telling you why this won't open those floodgates.

[ 01-17-2003, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

One problem we have with laws is that eveyone want's laws that protect their interests. Few want to actually spend the money it takes to develop the infrastucture to enforce said laws. The background check database system is faulty. For one thing, the people in charge of checking the buyers out have a conflict of interest right from the start. A fake ID will get you a gun just as quick as a real one. I think we all know that it's not that hard to get fake ID using someone elses name.

To make the laws low cost to enforce, they put the primary responsibility for them on the people. They also make laws generalized and zero tolerance so no one has to make a judgement call. These kind of laws can be quite dangerous to personal rights. Do you want to know how easy it is to ruin someones chances to own a firearm? To take away someones legal right? Just go request a restraining order on them. Restraining orders are issued without a lot of thought. It's not a conviction of anything and doesn't implicate you in any sort of crime. Nor does anything have to be proven to get one against you. In divorce cases, they can almost be standard procedure! It can be used to take away your right to own a firearm and that's not right!

<font color=lime>Exactly why should a car dealer not be responsible for ensureing he is selling his product to a responsible person? Can he not be made to look up a persons driving record? .....

It isn't that big a leap is what I am getting at ;) </font>

Hmmm...lets see. Where they shot with a shotgun? A shotgun is a reasonable instrument on rural farms and has some hunting applictions. Ummm...no. Were they shot with a deer-rifle? This is a reasonable instrument to be found in a hunter's possessions and it has reasonable hunting applications. Ummm...no again. Were they shot with a handgun? Some people in high-risk professions and law enforcement can be found with these, as they are a reasonable response to criminals and would-be robbers. Ummm...no again.

Actually, what killed these people was a military weapon (or styled weapon) that has no reasonable purpose being disseminated in any 20th or 21st century population. It looks something like this:



It has ZERO hunting applications, is too big to wield for personal self-defense, and has No Purpose other than as a sniper rifle that kills people.

[Don't even bring up target shooting; if you 'have' to use one of these to compete, you must be legally blind and arthritic. There are no rifle ranges built long enough to make these a challenge]

The only place these weapons should have are in the locked gun racks of law enforcement and military armories. They are, however, routinely marketed as 'macho guns', implying you aren't a man if you don't own one. This is how people get suckered into buying these things. Basically this suit goes to the point that these were manufactured and marketed for a purpose that is illegal by its very nature.

Am I going to tell you you can't have any gun? Please re-read what I wrote. Get a shotgun or a deer-rifle if you hunt. Get a revolver if you're a bonded courier. Carry a Glock if you are a cop. But lets keep these AR-15 Killing Machines off the street, shall we?

Good Points, Sir K. That restraining order bit, now that you mention it, is pretty sucky. A restraining order requires an affidavit though, IIRC. So, if you did get one for malicious reasons without a basis in fact, you'd be on the hook for perjury.

But, the real point is once you'd used the lie to get the restraining order, the restrainee ( :D ) would have to hire a lawyer and go to court to fix it. That's often the real problem with the law. Folks come my way all the time who've been wronged for $500 or $5,000. I often explain as well as I can what kind of costs they are looking at and I really discourage anyone from pursuing any claim of less than 8-10K, depending on complexity of course.

Now, it's funny that the one client we will pursue small claims for is a huge national corp. We do 3-4K matters for them free of charge as a "thank you" for the $1-2 mil. matters they send to us. It's really true that you have to have money to make/keep money.

[quote]Originally posted by MagiK:

Quote:

<font color=lime>Exactly why should a car dealer not be responsible for ensureing he is selling his product to a responsible person? Can he not be made to look up a persons driving record? ..... It isn't that big a leap is what I am getting at ;) </font>

Very true, MagiK. But, that law is currently NOT on the books - so take in up with the legislature. ;) Hey, I'm sure those draconian freaks at MAAD would support you. Imagine- MagiK the lobbyist. :D

I'm just saying that the *is* a law regarding the sale of guns. And, in a lawsuit, one quick route to prove fault/negligence is to show that the person you are suing broke a relevant law.

But, if your "open the floodgates" argument ties the courts to the legislature, please excuse me while I [img]graemlins/1puke.gif[/img]
- Because even a lawyer like me won't try to answer for goofy politicians.

I believe in America most companies will produce only those products that will make them a profit. If there were no one who was willing to buy this gun, then maybe the company would not produce it.

I believe it is also free to advertise in this country. If someone buys your product because of an advertisement then someone in your company has done their job.

Are you saying there is already a state or federal regulation against selling this gun? If that is so then maybe there is a basis for the suit on the manufacturer.

In my opinion, this is still not the issue at hand. I can be confident enough other human beings to believe the company did not want someone to buy this weapon and go on a killing spree with it. They are, most likely, like most companies, only interested in making a profit.

I believe in America most companies will produce only those products that will make them a profit. If there were no one who was willing to buy this gun, then maybe the company would not produce it.

<font color=lime>Homey I realize you don't know anything about guns..but the Bushmaster series is not some "Macho" military gimick, the series is used by farmers, ranchers and other people who have the need of a sturdy reliable firearm. The .223 calibur is a rather common varmit calibur used in killing small game that can be damaging to cattle, homes and land. (didn't we have this discussion once?)
</font>

Quote:

Basically this suit goes to the point that these were manufactured and marketed for a purpose that is illegal by its very nature.

Are you saying there is already a state or federal regulation against selling this gun? If that is so then maybe there is a basis for the suit on the manufacturer.

<font color=lime>Your ignorance of firearms is showing again. The Bushmaster and its uses are completely legal. </font>

In my opinion, this is still not the issue at hand. I can be confident enough other human beings to believe the company did not want someone to buy this weapon and go on a killing spree with it. They are, most likely, like most companies, only interested in making a profit.

<font color=lime>Can't fault your logic there.</font></font>[/QUOTE]