Remington Settles...

[fishngamereaper]

This is a settlement, not a guilty verdict.  Two very different things.

I'd be curious if the Bankruptcy required them to wrap this up, or cap the cost if able.

A settlement that admits guilt..
Sorry but this settlement totally takes out the human factor involved...it's not like the AR just up and started shooting....it was simply a tool..

Lots of things can be used as tools of death and destruction... should the maker of the tool be liable...it appears so from now on...

Is there a report they are admitting guilt?  I didn't see it in the article linked.

There are plenty of law suit settlements without admission.  Vehicle companies do it on the regular.

Have you see a vehicle manufacturer pay off a litigation lawsuit because their vehicle was used unlawfully to commit a felony.

I can see if the sear failed or something and the AR went full auto at the range while sitting on a table and killed people...

Again...a settlement in this case is an admission that your company is at fault for someone using your gun to commit a mass murder...seems straight forward to me...

[Rainier10]

People settle all the time without admitting guilt.  The payout for the settlement is way cheaper than the court costs and it is a known figure.  Taking it to court is always a gamble.

[Rainier10]

topic from this morning merged with the same basic topic started this afternoon.

[baker5150]

This is a settlement, not a guilty verdict.  Two very different things.

I'd be curious if the Bankruptcy required them to wrap this up, or cap the cost if able.

A settlement that admits guilt..
Sorry but this settlement totally takes out the human factor involved...it's not like the AR just up and started shooting....it was simply a tool..

Lots of things can be used as tools of death and destruction... should the maker of the tool be liable...it appears so from now on...

Is there a report they are admitting guilt?  I didn't see it in the article linked.

There are plenty of law suit settlements without admission.  Vehicle companies do it on the regular.

Have you see a vehicle manufacturer pay off a litigation lawsuit because their vehicle was used unlawfully to commit a felony.

I can see if the sear failed or something and the AR went full auto at the range while sitting on a table and killed people...

Again...a settlement in this case is an admission that your company is at fault for someone using your gun to commit a mass murder...seems straight forward to me...

This is an opinion, not a factual statement from the settlement. Settlements will literally state that they aren't admitting guilt.  I'm hoping this is the case here.

If admission is required, I agree completely, they will have set Gun Rights back decades.



 

[bearhunter99]

I think the main thing being missed here is that this went to the US Supreme Court and they allowed it to continue.  That is where the problem really lies. 

The path to a settlement was complicated, with the lawsuit making its way through the state Supreme Court after Remington argued it should be shielded under a federal law designed to prevent gun manufacturers from being held liable for crimes in which their guns were used. In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court said it would allow the suit to go forward.

[idaho guy]

I can't believe they settled, even if it cost them twice as much to fight this, it would have been worth it.  WTF were they thinking? No way this suit should have happened.

 

  they screwed the whole industry by settling-hard to believe they just folded like that. Get ready for gun prices to go through the roof

[lokidog]

This is a settlement, not a guilty verdict.  Two very different things.

I'd be curious if the Bankruptcy required them to wrap this up, or cap the cost if able.

A settlement that admits guilt..
Sorry but this settlement totally takes out the human factor involved...it's not like the AR just up and started shooting....it was simply a tool..

Lots of things can be used as tools of death and destruction... should the maker of the tool be liable...it appears so from now on...

Is there a report they are admitting guilt?  I didn't see it in the article linked.

There are plenty of law suit settlements without admission.  Vehicle companies do it on the regular.

How naive are you? Of course a settlement admits guilt, maybe not officially, but it sure as he... does.....

[Alchase]

From the article...
The blame is how the AR was marketed...and how it's shown in video games as the weapon of choice...it's the militaries primary weapon for war, there's a commercial with an AR that says consider your mancard reissued...blah blah ..

If this is the case why wasn't the video game co. Sued..the military, the broadcasting co for the commercial...etc...

And with this line of thinking it's pretty easy to utilize this ruling for huge financial settlements...like suing alcohol manufacturers for DUI death's, because of how they market their products...

This settlement is honestly mind boggling... there must be something else at play behind closed doors... IDK...

The lawsuit was for "False Advertisement" advertising as a militaristic weapon. Why Remington would advertise this way is beyond me, when every Dem is trying to identify the AR-15 as an Assault Weapon. Remington screwed themselves, advertising wise.
Which the Plaintive proved was false advertisement, and against Connecticut law.

I am not a lawyer, and I did not stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but something to think about,
If there is any precedence, this case also proved the Bush Master AR-15 that Remington sold, was not a militaristic weapon as advertised. Hence the false advertising "Deceptive Marketing Practices" lawsuit.

From CNN article:

"Lawyers for the plaintiffs contended that the company marketed rifles by extolling the militaristic qualities of the rifle and reinforcing the image of a combat weapon -- in violation of a Connecticut law that prevents deceptive marketing practices."

Remington is also in Chapter 11 bankruptcy (second time in two years) the $73 million is the exact amount there insurance covers.

[highside74]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxbusiness.com/politics/sandy-hook-lawsuit-remington-settlement.amp


So settling for 73mil.
What kind of precident is this setting...this isn't good for the future of gun manufacturers...

Well, maybe auto makers should be liable for drunk driving crashes.

Apple and Samsung can be sued for texting while driving.

HRC can be sued for ED

The list goes on...

Bro the HRC comment is freaking hilarious. Next level funny.

[full choke]

From the article...
The blame is how the AR was marketed...and how it's shown in video games as the weapon of choice...it's the militaries primary weapon for war, there's a commercial with an AR that says consider your mancard reissued...blah blah ..

If this is the case why wasn't the video game co. Sued..the military, the broadcasting co for the commercial...etc...

And with this line of thinking it's pretty easy to utilize this ruling for huge financial settlements...like suing alcohol manufacturers for DUI death's, because of how they market their products...

This settlement is honestly mind boggling... there must be something else at play behind closed doors... IDK...

The lawsuit was for "False Advertisement" advertising as a militaristic weapon. Why Remington would advertise this way is beyond me, when every Dem is trying to identify the AR-15 as an Assault Weapon. Remington screwed themselves, advertising wise.
Which the Plaintive proved was false advertisement, and against Connecticut law.

I am not a lawyer, and I did not stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but something to think about,
If there is any precedence, this case also proved the Bush Master AR-15 that Remington sold, was not a militaristic weapon as advertised. Hence the false advertising "Deceptive Marketing Practices" lawsuit.

From CNN article:

"Lawyers for the plaintiffs contended that the company marketed rifles by extolling the militaristic qualities of the rifle and reinforcing the image of a combat weapon -- in violation of a Connecticut law that prevents deceptive marketing practices."

Remington is also in Chapter 11 bankruptcy (second time in two years) the $73 million is the exact amount there insurance covers.

So... every single fast food chain stands to be sued for their deceptive advertising because I guarantee my taco's never look like the picture!

[full choke]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxbusiness.com/politics/sandy-hook-lawsuit-remington-settlement.amp


So settling for 73mil.
What kind of precident is this setting...this isn't good for the future of gun manufacturers...

Well, maybe auto makers should be liable for drunk driving crashes.

Apple and Samsung can be sued for texting while driving.

HRC can be sued for ED

The list goes on...

Bro the HRC comment is freaking hilarious. Next level funny.

[Alchase]

From the article...
The blame is how the AR was marketed...and how it's shown in video games as the weapon of choice...it's the militaries primary weapon for war, there's a commercial with an AR that says consider your mancard reissued...blah blah ..

If this is the case why wasn't the video game co. Sued..the military, the broadcasting co for the commercial...etc...

And with this line of thinking it's pretty easy to utilize this ruling for huge financial settlements...like suing alcohol manufacturers for DUI death's, because of how they market their products...

This settlement is honestly mind boggling... there must be something else at play behind closed doors... IDK...

The lawsuit was for "False Advertisement" advertising as a militaristic weapon. Why Remington would advertise this way is beyond me, when every Dem is trying to identify the AR-15 as an Assault Weapon. Remington screwed themselves, advertising wise.
Which the Plaintive proved was false advertisement, and against Connecticut law.

I am not a lawyer, and I did not stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but something to think about,
If there is any precedence, this case also proved the Bush Master AR-15 that Remington sold, was not a militaristic weapon as advertised. Hence the false advertising "Deceptive Marketing Practices" lawsuit.

From CNN article:

"Lawyers for the plaintiffs contended that the company marketed rifles by extolling the militaristic qualities of the rifle and reinforcing the image of a combat weapon -- in violation of a Connecticut law that prevents deceptive marketing practices."

Remington is also in Chapter 11 bankruptcy (second time in two years) the $73 million is the exact amount there insurance covers.

So... every single fast food chain stands to be sued for their deceptive advertising because I guarantee my taco's never look like the picture!

Well......you make a great point, they should be sued!

[WAcoyotehunter]

https://www.science.org/content/article/accidental-gun-killings-surged-after-sandy-hook-school-shooting

Interesting data from the time immediately post Sandy Hook.  Firearm sales soared after Sandy Hook, I wonder what profits were made during that sales bonanza and if that's how they settled on the $73m

https://piedmonthealthcare.com/u-s-gun-sales-rose-after-sandy-hook-massacre-study/

[hunter399]

Remington has been bankrupt for awhile anyway right.

[wafisherman]

https://www.science.org/content/article/accidental-gun-killings-surged-after-sandy-hook-school-shooting

Interesting data from the time immediately post Sandy Hook.  Firearm sales soared after Sandy Hook, I wonder what profits were made during that sales bonanza and if that's how they settled on the $73m

https://piedmonthealthcare.com/u-s-gun-sales-rose-after-sandy-hook-massacre-study/

More than likely the settlement money comes from their insurance.  I've seen this personally.  The entity being sued does not want to drag on a long lawsuit and risk losing or at minimum drawing out a long PR nightmare.  So they use their insurance money to just shut the whole thing down.  If they go on, the plaintiffs may not see a payday (assuming they even win) for years if not decades through long drawn-out appeals processes.  This is hard on the company/entity and the law firms involved trying to cover costs for years on end, and as these legal costs skyrocket, the final payouts to the plaintiffs gets chewed up by the legal costs.  So often the settlement, while not ideal for all sides, is a compromise all are willing to take so they can all move on.  In this instance, a jury is definitely going to be very emotionally impacted simply by the unfathomable tragedy of all those children and teachers slaughtered like animals.

In a sense, Remington may be doing the industry a favor (and you know industry leaders and their lawyers were talking about this) in that if this were to continue through trial AND there was some sort of guilty verdict - even just fringe aspects of the case, if not the primary charges... It sets a terrible precedent for the industry and now they are all put in more risk as there is no legal precedence and case history others can point to support their cases.   A settlement can still paint a target on them, but it won't have legal precedence to back it up, and hopefully it won't have the bodies of a few dozen innocent children and adults to drive it.  I could see how the industry would want to pressure Remington to settle.  Then again, I could be WAAAYYYY off, as I'm no lawyer and not close to this case in any way.