Parkland victims trying to sue the gun manufactures and a few others.

[actaeon277]

I would not be surprised to find that a well known gun control group is helping the parents with this law suit. If that is the case then it is just a disgusting abuse of a family who is grieving after a tragic loss.

We've seen how this goes before. Families who lost loved ones in mass shootings are encouraged to file suit and spend money on a case that has no legal merit, and which will fail, all so that a gun control group can use their new suffering for political gains in an attempt to erode the rights of others.

I sincerely hope that this family can escape this situation before they pour good money after bad.

I think a gun control group does tell them.
Probably pays when they lose.
They just fail to mention that to the media, or public.
That way, they have a chance, however small, of winning.
And if they lose, they can say, "Look the evil NRA. And look at the evil manufacturers. And the evil politicians that made this law. Any other industry can be sued, why not the gun industry." Of course, failing to mention the gun industry CAN be sued. Just not for someone using their product.
Then, they get all that bad publicity.

 

[wtburnette]

Huh. So the little wacko douche bag kills his Mother and takes her guns. Shoots up a school.
Now blame is being laid on the people that made the guns.

Help me out here. Please.

Liberal logic. It doesn't have to make any sense, it just has to feel right...

 

[jamil]

Yes, someone else sued, lost, and had to pay. The news made it out that the gun manufacturers were without hearts.
Never mentioned, or in only a sentence or two, about the fact that the law stated that they couldn't sue for that, and they'd have to pay. They were even warned.

The few mentions of it, said you couldn't sue gun manufacturers, unlike other products. Which is a lie. You can still sue if the product is defective, or causes injury through it's defectiveness.
But not for the actions of another person.

Let's see if the logic holds out. For example, the incel kid who rented a van and used it to run over people in Canada, is anyone insane enough to say that the manufacturer of the van is in any way liable for that? Or even the rental company who rented the van?

 

[nwihiker]

Because they're getting bad advice.
Advice from people that are USING them to try to make gun stuff look bad and uncaring.

This right here. The F***steins and B****bergs that enourage victims to do this don't care at all about the families, they care about optics. They know that the families are going to lose, and then they will get stuck with the fees. They want that to happen so they can get big, shocking headlines that read:
"GUN MAKERS FORCING PARKLAND VICTIMS' FAMILIES TO PAY $___,___,___ IN LEGAL FEES!!!"

 

[actaeon277]

Let's see if the logic holds out. For example, the incel kid who rented a van and used it to run over people in Canada, is anyone insane enough to say that the manufacturer of the van is in any way liable for that? Or even the rental company who rented the van?

Well, when that happened, that train of thought was brought up.

 

[OakRiver]

Let's see if the logic holds out. For example, the incel kid who rented a van and used it to run over people in Canada, is anyone insane enough to say that the manufacturer of the van is in any way liable for that? Or even the rental company who rented the van?

Why stop there? Sue the gas station that provided the gas, the tire manufacturer, and the DMV that gave him his license.

 

[KG1]

Sue the tool maker for criminal misuse of the tool.....mkay.

 

[Hoosierkav]

Option one: Keep probing the vulnerabilities of a law until you find an angle that works.

Option two: Try to sue, lose, then bring attention to the unfairness of the law to generate pressure to change the law (remove immunity), which then opens the floodgates and closes the gun manufacturers' doors.

 

[Doug]

If you ever hear this discussed, be sure to point out that the Broward (Coward) County Sheriff's office cannot be sued because the police have no responsibility to protect people from criminals or respond to calls for help (Warren v. D.C., et al).

 

[Ricnzak]

I'm deeply afraid that this shooting in Noblesville is bringing the madness to us. Local school facebook posts are on fire right now about gun control. The mom's action bunch is lying about themselves saying they protect 2A while looking for solutions. With follow up posts of 3 or 4 moms saying they just signed up. There was posts about the NRA booth downtown Saturday. No-one mentioned it was a planned event for a store grand opening. They looked at it as the NRA being opportunistic. I kind of wondered if they would delay grand opening a week. Two kids holding anti gun signs in front of a NRA tent the day after a school shooting was a horrible optic that played right into the frenzy. I hope not, but I expect the lawsuits to start flying here soon. Probably as soon as the lawyers offices open tomorrow.

 

[searpinski]

Let's use some fun liberal logic:

1. McDonalds makes people fat, let's sue them
2. Ford makes people drive drunk, let's sue them
3. Ruger allows people to be killed, let's sue them

Come on guys, it's for the children and the greater good!

 

[Doug]

Just remember, you can't sue the police for not protecting the victims.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Judge rules cops, schools had no duty to shield students in Parkland shooting lawsuit

 

[churchmouse]

Judge rules cops, schools had no duty to shield students in Parkland shooting lawsuit

I saw this. Now think with me for a minute......any real man/woman with a heart will not give 2 cents about duty. If the children are in danger and you do not act you are a coward of the highest order. Period. Especially if you are wearing the badge. Especially.

Now, can you be sued for said cowardice......no. But you can live a life of shame. And possibly get your asses beat by some seriously angry parents.

 

[Leadeye]

Always follow the money

 

[HoughMade]

Just remember, you can't sue the police for not protecting the victims.

The legal principle is pretty clear. There is no duty to a specific individual to enforce the law. The duty is to the public at large...which means there IS a duty, but not one that supports a lawsuit be individuals. The recourse is political, not $$. Most states, Indiana included, have specific immunity statutes.

 

[Savagedaddy19]

Seems to like its just about the money at this point. There is no reason that the family should even be able to sue the companies involved. It wasn't the company that went nuts and killed people, its the acts of the person that done it. I know that it sounds terrible for me to say this, but I truly hope that the lawsuit goes nowhere and they are forced to pay the bills and fees for this! Being greedy and trying to blame the wrong people isn't the right way to go about getting anything done. People that do things like this really make me question the humanity of people in this world anymore.

Am I wrong for saying what I said about the family? If so please let me know what your thoughts are.

 

[Alamo]

The legal principle is pretty clear. There is no duty to a specific individual to enforce the law. ....

Absent a special duty to the individual, such as (but limited to?) those in custody, right?

Given that there are IIRC at least 19 SCOTUS cases where they've said the cops generally don't have a duty to do anything, I am guessing this decision will stand and the cases will go nowhere (there is another lawsuit against Peterson where the trial judge has rejected his immunity and "no duty" arguments so far).

But public school kids are not Joe Schmoe walking down the street. There's a whole regime of public laws requiring those kids to be in a school someplace, public, private, or in some states home-school, enforced with government money and agents. Seems like the duty to protect them should be at least as strong for them as incarcerated Joe Felon.

 

[Spear Dane]

A
But public school kids are not Joe Schmoe walking down the street. There's a whole regime of public laws requiring those kids to be in a school someplace, public, private, or in some states home-school, enforced with government money and agents. Seems like the duty to protect them should be at least as strong for them as incarcerated Joe Felon.

Quit making sense. You will implode the entire legal profession.

 

[Leadeye]

Turning the argument around 180, what would happen if individual police and organizations were liable? For one, there wouldn't be enough money in taxes collected to pay the legal bills of any police organization.