Published on their FacistBook page in late February:
So what the idiot who wrote the story failed to mention (and what we still don't know) is who is paying this $33 mil.
Posted on 07/28/2021 8:59:11 PM PDT by aimhigh
The company that made a rifle used in one of the worst school shootings in the US has offered $33m (£24m) to several victims' families. The proposed settlement for the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre from Remington, America's oldest gun-maker, came as part of a bankruptcy hearing for the company.
It also comes in response to a lawsuit brought by families of nine of the 26 victims.
Each family would receive some $3.66m.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
Egregious missteps like the R-51 pistol and others didn’t help much either.
CC
It’s like Remmington pulled the trigger. What a joke. I have no sympathy for the families who brought this suit. Greed does not make a lose go away.
Tis what happens when the judges become completely rotten and corrupt. Never should have seen the light of day in any American court.
So they had to admit culpability when they have none?
Published on their FacistBook page in late February:
So what the idiot who wrote the story failed to mention (and what we still don't know) is who is paying this $33 mil.
This is ridiculous.
Why not sue Ford, for OJ’s Bronco chase ?
"This is ridiculous.Why not sue Ford, for OJ’s Bronco chase ?"
I'm afraid it's even stupider than that.
The perp's first victim was his own mother, who he killed so he could steal her Bushmaster AR.
He was determined enough to commit mass murder that he'd go to the extreme of killing his own mother in order to get the weapon he'd need to carry out the rest of his plan.
And for this they want to blame the manufacturer of the rifle.
If I were a holder of Remington debt I would contest this settlement.
The likelihood of the Sandy Hook families succeeding in their suit is minimal.
The only reason that Remington wants to settle is to expedite the completion of the bankruptcy.
Where does Remington's liability come from?
This is a horrible precedent.
Remminton is at best getting bad legal advice.
Frivolous lawsuits should be fought until the litigants are dead, along with three generations of descendants.
Even if that costs more on one lawsuit, it discourages the next generation of parasites from bothering.
This is a dreadful precedent.
It will only open a Pandora’s Box.
They should offer precisely nothing. Its not the companies fault that a lunatic intentionally misused a lawful product which functioned as designed in order to commit a crime.
Is it Ford’s fault when a drunk driver gets behind the wheel of an Explorer and slams into someone killing them?
Of course not. That would be insane. No company could make anything if that were the case. They’d get sued into oblivion. They couldn’t get insurance. They’d have to shut their doors.,,,,,,which of course is exactly what the gun grabbers are aiming for any why the Congress passed the lawful commerce act.
Intentional misuse of a product by a 3rd party severs proximate cause......for my fellow lawyers out there.
Pathetic... I’m a big Remington fan but this is just nuts.
Where does Remington’s liability come from?
Not having a spine.
Very bad.
What now? Come again.
Should NOT offer 33 cents.
Setting a precedent.
"... [A] lawyer for the families [...] said the offer was from two of the four insurance companies that did business with Remington, which is bankrupt...."
Which I take to mean that the money isn't coming from Remington directly, it's coming from two insurance companies that previously insured the now non-existent company. Which at least makes sense because the Remington that once owned Bushmaster no longer exists.
And Huzzah! for the two insurance companies that didn't pay the woke extortion.
Re: Not having a spine.
And a little help from our politically corrupt judicial system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.