Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother[W:52]

Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Gaius46 said:

There would be some very serious unintended consequences to loser pays. Primarily people with legitimate grievances who could not afford to pay if they lost would be very reluctant to bring their cases about.

Lawyers essentially act as a brake on unwinnable suits because they usually work on contingency and won't take a case that they don't see a chance of winning. That of course has downsides as well, for the most part in the area of class action suits, but there is no perfect solution.

What we obviously really need to do is change our mindset. Just because something had happens it doesn't mean someone is automatically liable. It's hard to see how a manufacturer should be liable for the misuse or illegal use of their product. Maybe as a first step the we need to reform law to get the "deep pockets" out of the picture in cases where there isn't a product defect.

Click to expand...

Another problem is with partial liability findings in civil cases; if you are found 5% liable (or, in other words, 95% not liable) then why should you be forced to make any settlement unless and until all of the other "guilty" parties are forced to pay up? Obviously your defense costs are still 100% even if your (potential) liability is not. If one was forced to face all parties at fault (in one case) then they could pool their defense resources making your odds of picking them off one by one far less.

Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Fletch said:

I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you oppose this same sort 'warning' when it comes to capital punishment. THAT somehow isn't a deterrent but a lawsuit is...

Click to expand...

Judging from the response here, I would say yes. It really makes no difference that the mother died, that is not always the case and has nothing to do with punishment by society. You guys are scared $hitless that you might lose everything because of your guns but isn't that what happened to all those grieving parents?

Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

I actually agree with the lawsuit. If it is found that there is a a reasonable belief that Nancy Lanza knew her son was dangerous and unstable, she should have done a better job of securing her weapons if not had them removed to a friends home for a while. Unlike suing the gun manufacturers...this lawsuit actually makes senses.

Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

spud_meister said:

3 years on, these people are in the "how can I profit from my child's death?" stage of grief. :roll: Arseholes.

Click to expand...

You would see it that way. I see parents trying to stop this from happening to others.

Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

iguanaman said:

You would see it that way. I see parents trying to stop this from happening to others.

Click to expand...

And money grubbing soul sucking lawyers trying to pilfer their weasily black guts out. The dead woman already paid the price. The "responsible" party was murdered for her gun. By her son no less. And the actual responsible party died in the school.

This isn't about parents stopping it with lawsuits. It is about a pay day for bottom feeding scum who have convinced these parents to pay all kinds of money to them (over half of any winnings I bet). Oh. And if they lose? Those soul sucking scumbag lawyers still get a payday.

Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

iguanaman said:

Judging from the response here, I would say yes. It really makes no difference that the mother died, that is not always the case and has nothing to do with punishment by society. You guys are scared $hitless that you might lose everything because of your guns but isn't that what happened to all those grieving parents?

Click to expand...

I don't own a gun, so...

Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

stonewall50 said:

And money grubbing soul sucking lawyers trying to pilfer their weasily black guts out. The dead woman already paid the price. The "responsible" party was murdered for her gun. By her son no less. And the actual responsible party died in the school.

This isn't about parents stopping it with lawsuits. It is about a pay day for bottom feeding scum who have convinced these parents to pay all kinds of money to them (over half of any winnings I bet). Oh. And if they lose? Those soul sucking scumbag lawyers still get a payday.

Click to expand...

If Mrs. Lanza acted negligently then her estate should pay for it and if for no other reason than as a lesson to others to secure their firearms. That's the essence of tort law.

Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

haymarket said:

On which "principle" would that be?

Click to expand...

"Mom is dead and lawyers are greedy bitches"

Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

iguanaman said:

You would see it that way. I see parents trying to stop this from happening to others.

Click to expand...

Why do you think Spud would 'see it that way'? He's got a decent liberal lean and has never been an overly zealous gun nut. Wait...gasp...could it be that maybe 'you' are the one with the all too predictable position here?

Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Gaius46 said:

If Mrs. Lanza acted negligently then her estate should pay for it and if for no other reason than as a lesson to others to secure their firearms. That's the essence of tort law.

Click to expand...

Let me ask you a very serious question. Can you act negligently if you are dead? She is dead. She was murdered. Remember?

I don't need a lesson to secure my firearms. I do. Nobody is getting their hands on my gun. If they kill me...that is different. That is out of the realm of my control. Is that going to be the argument these lawyers make? That I should secure my guns in such a way that nobody can get them if I am murdered?

Now let's take a trip back to reality for a second. Let's not pretend this is about "gun safety." Let's analyze reality here. Would you sue a car company for a drunk driver? How about a knife company for a stabbing? Or a pool company if a child drowns in the pool?

The answer is no. No logical person would. What did these lawyers do after the shooting? They sued the gun company. I don't blame the parents for going after the companies. That makes sense for someone who loses a child and is grief stricken and looking for someone to blame. Especially since the one they should blame killed himself like the little coward he was.

But that isn't what is happening here. These parents aren't looking to punish anyone. Besides...how is this a lesson since the gun owner was MURDERED.

TL;DR

This is about money. Scum sucking lawyers trying to profit off the dead. Don't stand up for them. This isn't about justice and you know it. It is about greed. Cui Bono? Who gets the most money if they win? The lawyer? Or the client? It ain't the client.

And didn't this come up AFTER they found out about the $1,000,000? Smells like fish to me. And that ain't cause I just got back from the beach.

Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

stonewall50 said:

Let me ask you a very serious question. Can you act negligently if you are dead? She is dead. She was murdered. Remember?

I don't need a lesson to secure my firearms. I do. Nobody is getting their hands on my gun. If they kill me...that is different. That is out of the realm of my control. Is that going to be the argument these lawyers make? That I should secure my guns in such a way that nobody can get them if I am murdered?

Now let's take a trip back to reality for a second. Let's not pretend this is about "gun safety." Let's analyze reality here. Would you sue a car company for a drunk driver? How about a knife company for a stabbing? Or a pool company if a child drowns in the pool?

The answer is no. No logical person would. What did these lawyers do after the shooting? They sued the gun company. I don't blame the parents for going after the companies. That makes sense for someone who loses a child and is grief stricken and looking for someone to blame. Especially since the one they should blame killed himself like the little coward he was.

But that isn't what is happening here. These parents aren't looking to punish anyone. Besides...how is this a lesson since the gun owner was MURDERED.

TL;DR

This is about money. Scum sucking lawyers trying to profit off the dead. Don't stand up for them. This isn't about justice and you know it. It is about greed. Cui Bono? Who gets the most money if they win? The lawyer? Or the client? It ain't the client.

And didn't this come up AFTER they found out about the $1,000,000? Smells like fish to me. And that ain't cause I just got back from the beach.

Click to expand...

It's not at all the same as the case you pointed out about being liable because someone kills you and steals your weapons. Mrs. Lanza was killed with her own weapons taken, not off her person, but from wherever they were stored. Different picture because if Mrs. Lanza was negligent her negligence predates her death.

How one secures their firearms depends on circumstances - you can't draw a hard and fast rule. When my kids were little my handguns and long guns were locked away. Now that my children are adults one handgun is not locked - in the interest of self defense should it ever be necessary - when I'm home. In my circumstances that seems reasonable. If I had a kid, even as an adult, with mental problems, or one who exhibits violent tendencies that might not be reasonable. Maybe in that case the only reasonable thing to do is to not have any firearms at all.


In our system people (or their estate in this case) can be sued if they acted negligently and caused harm to other people. It's not about punishment as much as it's about compensating people for their loss. Yeah it's distasteful to talk about compensating for a death but that's the way the system works. If you don't like it work on changing the system, don't blame the families for taking advantage of the system.

I've already stated that the gun manufacturers should not be sued. It isn't their fault in any way. The weapons operated as designed. it's up to the owner to secure them and make sure they take reasonable precautions to insure they aren't used illegally.

Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

nota bene said:

I'm sure the ambulance-chasers have persuaded them that they are somehow honoring their deceased children's memories and somehow protecting other children.

Click to expand...

I think these families genuinely believe that gun laws would've saved their children's lives and three years after the shooting no substantive laws have been passed outside of CT and CO, they probably feel the medias moved on and want to bring the topic back out.

I really can't blame them

Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

MrVicchio said:

"Mom is dead and lawyers are greedy bitches"

Click to expand...

That is no principle but a personal opinion of yours based on vitriol and demonization.

Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

iguanaman said:

You would see it that way. I see parents trying to stop this from happening to others.

Click to expand...

How, exactly, will that work? How does suing a murder victim for the actions of a murderer prevent anything?

Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

haymarket said:

That is no principle but a personal opinion of yours based on vitriol and demonization.

Click to expand...

Please man, stop with the moral BS. You're all for this in hopes it can hurt gun ownership, that's all you care about. The parents, the pain, the costs to everyone else is nothing. All you see is a furthered political agenda, nothing more.

Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

These people want to feel some measure of control left over from a terrible event they had no control over. But there is nothing but time that will relieve their pain and continuing to want to *take action,* no matter how useless or misguided, is not going to fix it.

They need to move on.

Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

MrVicchio said:

Please man, stop with the moral BS.

Click to expand...

So morals are BS. Got it. :doh:roll:

Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

haymarket said:

So morals are BS. Got it. :doh:roll:

Click to expand...

With you, yes, because you're not motivated by moral outrage just political opportunism.

Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

VanceMack said:

I actually agree with the lawsuit. If it is found that there is a a reasonable belief that Nancy Lanza knew her son was dangerous and unstable, she should have done a better job of securing her weapons if not had them removed to a friends home for a while. Unlike suing the gun manufacturers...this lawsuit actually makes senses.

Click to expand...

If there was a law requiring such you may have a point.

Otherwise no.
No such responsibility exists.


A gun is a tool.
Just as a pencil is.
So if he had gotten a hold of her pencil and stabbed people in the neck and they died, should she be sued because she didn't better secure her pencil?
A hammer? A screw driver?
A butcher knife?

The concept is abhorrent.

Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Excon said:

If there was a law requiring such you may have a point.

Otherwise no.
No such responsibility exists.


A gun is a tool.
Just as a pencil is.
So if he had gotten a hold of her pencil and stabbed people in the neck and they died, should she be sued because she didn't better secure her pencil?
A hammer? A screw driver?
A butcher knife?

The concept is abhorrent.

Click to expand...

Thats why (had she lived) there would be no legal charges. This is a civil suit.

Come on...be honest. Your comments are ridiculous. You HAVE to know that.

Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

VanceMack said:

Come on...be honest. Your comments are ridiculous. You HAVE to know that.

Click to expand...

You are speaking moon battery if you think I am not being honest.
No they are not ridiculous.
Holding someone responsible for the acts of another is ridiculous.

It is the same thing as holding a homeowner responsible for a criminal harming their self on a ladder that had been left out.
It is ridiculous.

Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Excon said:

You are speaking moon battery if you think I am not being honest.
No the are not ridiculous.
Holding someone responsible for the acts of another is ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Wow...if you are being honest and dont think your comments are ridiculous, then maybe you are just mentally retarded and thats the best you have. In that case, I sincerely apologize. I really thought you were just acting that way.

Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

VanceMack said:

Wow...if you are being honest and dont think your comments are ridiculous, then maybe you are just mentally retarded and thats the best you have. In that case, I sincerely apologize. I really thought you were just acting that way.

Click to expand...

Your comment applies to your self.
Head on over to the mirror and start apologizing.

Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Declan said:

So an insurance company might have to pay out to them instead of somebody else and the company's policy holders will pay the cost. Quite the payday for the lawyers.

Click to expand...

Yep.....It's the lawyers who will get the most benefit. Considering that the only one in the family to blame beside the shooter, was killed, it cannot be about punishment, unless they think they are punishing an estate. It's about money. It will not bring those children and teachers back.

Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Excon said:

Your comment applies to your self.
Head on over to the mirror and start apologizing.

Click to expand...

Very nice! The debate equivalent of 'I know you are but what am I?" How...1st grade of you. Did someone have to help you type that too?

Look...if you are the parent or guardian of a child, especially one that you know is very clearly demonstrating violent and aggressive tendencies, then you have an obligation to take reasonable steps to secure both the childs safety and that of those around him. Leaving a weapon which can reasonably be expected to be used to harm large numbers of people in a non-secured environment and within easy access to that individual makes you at LEAST civilly liable. But where you jump off the 'stupid' reservation and land squarely into 'retarded' is when you want to make the inane comparison of an AR15 with high capacity magazines to pencils. And if you are too stupid to understand that, then you probably cant turn on a computer by yourself and have to have help putting your helmet on in the morning as well.