There's no way Hayes is going to spin this as the fault of his victims. When you get out of your car and shoot two unarmed people and one of them dies you're going to have to get lucky to get life in prison. Assuming you're not wearing a uniform.
I don't know. Seems like the perp was hell bent on getting will smith out of the car. He stopped short to try to cause an accident, then, when smith didn't stop he chased him down.
And now the alleged call to 911 to report the "hit and run" seems to have never taken place even though Hayes attorney claims the call was made. http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2016/04/will_smith_death_911_call_hit.html "A review of NOPD logs shows no record of a 911 call made to report a hit-and-run, or any other incident, in the Lower Garden District area where the accident took place and before the time of the Smith shooting, according to a review of police data by NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune. Logs of 911 calls made April 9 show only two calls made from that immediate area late Saturday night: An 11:29 p.m. call to report Smith's homicide at Sophie Wright Place and Felicity Street, followed at 11:33 p.m. by a call made to report a car accident at that exact same location. Surveillance video placed the location of the possible hit-and-run at Magazine Street near St. Andrews Street, more than two blocks away from where Smith died. There's no record of a 911 call reporting anything at that first location late Saturday night."
to be cont'd . . . http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/15/n...es.html&eventName=Watching-article-click&_r=0
Suits like that seem just absurd to me. that seems like the dumbest, least logical way to approach gun safety in this country. Having said that it's probably the way we will go in the future.
I feel terrible for the families of this tragedy but they will never win this suit. The judge only allowed it to be heard. They will not win. I'd put a lot of money on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act
There's a carve out in the law for “negligent entrustment” which the statute defines to mean "the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others." (emphasis added). So I guess the are going to litigate over whether Bushmaster should reasonably know that when it aggressively markets its rifles to the general public, some of them are going to end up in the hands of some bowl-cutted youth psycho? I guess that's a pretty long shot, but it does seem to happen often enough.
So, if a car salesman sells a vette to a kid who just keeps talking about how fast it is and how he can't wait to see how fast it goes and the kid kills some people in a high speed accident the victims families can sue the dealer and chevy for promoting and selling a car that the kid was obviously not responsible enough to operate? I feel for the victims, i really do but i don't think they are right going after manufacturers
Don't blame the bowl cuts. In the 70's half the kids I knew had bowl cuts and none of us ended up like Adam Lanza. A bad haircut is a travesty but most grow out of them.
The difference are: there are competency tests you have to pass before you can own/operate a car and car ownership is heavily documented. Every car is associated with an owner. The NRA sees any kind of conditions as the first step for the gvt to take away their guns. Imo you can compare guns and cars bc of the fundamental differences on how ownership is treated.
How does the proof of ownership make 1 manufacturer less liable than the other? They are both selling to dealers who are then selling to consumers. How are they responsible for the actions of another person.
what about pool manufacturers, salesmen and the guy who fills the pool? surely they're liable for someone drowning.
You guys keep comparing an unregulated industry to regulated ones. If a pool builder does not follow specs and someone is hurt in a pool they improperly built (most likely from the slope being too steep and someone breaking their neck) then yes a pool builder can be sued. The problem is there are no safety standards and regulations for guns so when something tragic happens the public doesn't know who to blame so they blame everyone. Make everyone who owns a gun pass a competency test and get a license. Have gun ownerships registered so we know who owns what. Hold the owners of the guns liable if they improperly transfer ownership. Put pressure on the manufacturers to add more safety features. Is it really asking that much?
But the people trying to sue the gun manufacturers are not suing because of a problem with the way the gun was built. What kind of safety features could be added to stop a psycho from taking his mothers guns and shooting a bunch of people? Most of the problems, besides the massive amount of illegal firearms out there, lie with the government not properly running the screening process and gun owners that don't properly secure their guns. I don't have a problem with guns being registered and loopholes on sales closed but none of this is a manufacturer issue. But above all that make the prison time for an illegal firearm 10 years for the 1st offense. I know I have said that many times over but that is because I think it would have the greatest impact by far.
guns aren't regulated? yea ok. we aren't talking about a faulty gun. we're talking about a gun working just fine and the manufacturer being sued. I don't think the competency of gun owners is the problem, do you? If only lanza were incompetent.
