Remington Arms Settles with Sandy Hook Victims

[JT88]

The ad is stupid and immature (like most ads are nowadays). I don't personally think companies should prey on weak young men trying to find an "identity" in some material thing. But how can we honestly claim that it suggests killing? If that's what he got from the ad, he needed help.

Did I miss something? How does having your man card "reissued" suggest violence is somehow part of the equation? Because to me this sounds like a cultural/psychological problem, not an advertising problem.

Another question. If the ad said something like "love your neighbor, violence is wrong", do you think it would have had an effect on this kid? Honest question

 

[Sytes]

The horror isn't in hunting with the black guns...it's when 6 year olds get sawed in half by them. The hunting community would get a lot farther with the public by showing some empathy to the families of the victims of Sandy Hook rather than entrenching the "over my dead body" rhetoric.

I use guns to hunt too, but don't feel the need to carry around a damn-near-automatic tactical weapon with bump stocks and the like. A bolt action .270 or pump 12 ga. isn't ever going to get banned.

Types of firearms used in these horrific events... Handguns, shotguns, and rifles. In no way does empathy give carte blanche free reign to support the direction an emotional person takes. We may 100% agree, 100% disagree though in no way does that discount my empathy for any parent, grandparent, brother, sister, cousin, aunt, uncle, friend who've lost anyone.



A law abiding citizen is a law abiding citizen. To demand another law abiding citizen should not posses the ability to exercise his/her 1st amendment right because you disagree with his/her presence is a stomp on our Bill of Rights - IMHO. The first amendment is not selective based on personal opinions. But this has been regurgitated enough.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The ad is stupid and immature (like most ads are nowadays). I don't personally think companies should prey on weak young men trying to find an "identity" in some material thing. But how can we honestly claim that it suggests killing? If that's what he got from the ad, he needed help.

Did I miss something? How does having your man card "reissued" suggest violence is somehow part of the equation? Because to me this sounds like a cultural/psychological problem, not an advertising problem.

Another question. If the ad said something like "love your neighbor, violence is wrong", do you think it would have had an effect on this kid? Honest question

Car adds now always say at the bottom, "Professional Driver on a closed course do not attempt" which tells me they are thinking about similar liability.

I'm not sure how you 'fix' marketing.

 

[Nick87]

Car adds now always say at the bottom, "Professional Driver on a closed course do not attempt" which tells me they are thinking about similar liability.

I'm not sure how you 'fix' marketing.

Also all the drink responsibly alcohol adds. Even the kids Lego commercials say ask a parent before going on line.

 

[Finalshot]

Wonder why the insurers would agree to pay their full limits without some type of ruling. I understand there are court costs, but $73 mil is a lot to voluntarily fork over.

the penalty was rather minuscule and limited by the judge because Remington went bankrupt. Its assets were sold off and Vista, I believe owns the name now and still sells ammo under the Remington name. the rest of the assets were sold to various companies.

 

[Finalshot]

Terrible precedence to see. I understand it was Remington‘s insurance companies that paid out, not Remington, but still not a good look, and yes the shooter took the rifle after shooting his mom in the face with a .22 4 times while she slept.

there is no more "Remington". Vista now owns the name and sells ammo under the name Remington. The company went bankrupt.

 

[VikingsGuy]

The next time someone crashes into me in their Civic, Honda Motor Company better watch out!

Yup - same laws apply - why do you think all their ads say, "closed course and professional driver, do not repeat yourself"?

 

[VikingsGuy]

I thought we had statutes against such nonsense.

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)

Specifically excludes state consumer protection laws - such as faulty trigger - or in this case, alleged improper marketing.

 

[VikingsGuy]

This is Remington - identifying that jury pools are TAINTED nowadays due to extremes... The potential jury award would be much more damning than a settlement that likely says they are not admitting guilt, etc...

The problem with tainted jury pools in our modern social media setting... ugly setting. Jury members have two choices (well three)
1. find fault of a company - walk out writing books and have backs patted by emotionally driven organizations sucking up $$$ and people praising jurors or....
2. No fault and they become targets themselves - Americans haunted at their house, their children at schools, work concerns over adverse media... all for what? doing their service.

Easy option vs life time of hell. Juries of today are not what they were during paper print days.

Sad.

This was a bankruptcy trustee and 3 insurance companies closing out the books - this was not a jury finding of fact, a judicial finding or an active firearms business making a business decision. This version of Rem is dead and no longer exists. An active company would have probably fought, as I would guess they had a better than 50-50 shot at winning.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I understand what they did. Just wondering out loud, why. There is no precedent for and a pretty well established statute against.

Because the "they" was the bankruptcy trustee and some old insurers - this was not a firearms business decision.

 

[VikingsGuy]

It's a settlement, not a jury award. This settlement does not state guilt. Thus, it keeps the PLCAA in tact for another fight, another day.

HOWEVER, one focus of the complainants was access to all discovery based exec communications, etc from the defunct Remington Arms company. THIS likely possesses much more emotionally damning information available for use in other suits and makes the settlement a pretty big win. Probably makes John Gruden a saint - from an emotional standpoint.

Typical plaintiff's bar settlement tactic - get more ammunition for the next fight as part of the settlement of this one -- and the bankruptcy trustee was an easy target for that approach as he has no skin in this broader game.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I wonder if Telsa will have to pay for their autonomous driving fatalities. Or Fauci. . .

Couldn't help it.

They will, as all car companies do. I hate our tort system, but this is par for the course.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Each side in a case does its best to eliminate jurors if they can detect a mindset detrimental to their side of the case.

Also to win a judgement you need the entire jury to agree. The defense in a liability case only needs one stubborn juror.

In many states torts are 51% verdicts not unanimous - haven't looked into rules for this specific case.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Exactly. I sometimes even hunt with one of these scary black guns, the horror!

Actually, that fact should be a crime . We should all be required to hunt with @BrentD approved firearms.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Remington wasn't at fault just like that money isn't going to replace those families loved ones. Just an opportunity for lawyers to steal a piece of pie. Remington was a victim of the system and those families are a victim to mental illness. The lawyers walked away pockets full smiling.

Remington died because of many catastrophic business choices and shocking loss of quality under that management. As such, they were bankrupt before this case got deep in the process. This was settled by bean counters from the insurance companies and bankruptcy trustees. This was not a business decision by anybody - as the business was so poorly run that they couldn't make money during the flushest times for firearms anyone can remember.

 

[rtraverdavis]

The ad is stupid and immature (like most ads are nowadays). I don't personally think companies should prey on weak young men trying to find an "identity" in some material thing. But how can we honestly claim that it suggests killing? If that's what he got from the ad, he needed help.

Did I miss something? How does having your man card "reissued" suggest violence is somehow part of the equation? Because to me this sounds like a cultural/psychological problem, not an advertising problem.

Another question. If the ad said something like "love your neighbor, violence is wrong", do you think it would have had an effect on this kid? Honest question

Speaking generally now, not specifically about this case. I'm no psychologist, and this is purely speculation, but I think that anyone who's looking for affirmations of their manhood in a product is likely highly-impressionable and possibly unstable. It seems to me that for a guy to believe that he has "lost his man card," he has to first carry the idea that no one listens, no one cares, and that he's powerless and needs to do something to reclaim his power. The message that possessing a particular weapon will help guys reclaim this power could, in the wrong mind, be taken to mean that power is something to be claimed by force. With violence. Like when a kid has a terrible home-life, is powerless at home, and then goes to school and bullies other kids--that idea, just taken to the extreme.

 

[LWC55]

the penalty was rather minuscule and limited by the judge because Remington went bankrupt. Its assets were sold off and Vista, I believe owns the name now and still sells ammo under the Remington name. the rest of the assets were sold to various companies.

Limited by what judge? I thought the insurers agreed to pay their policy limits.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Thank you for sharing this. I reviewed this info when it occurred as I was stunned and appreciate facts over the usual internet b.s. Thank you for interjecting documentation. A necessity in today's Internet weaved world of conclusions as 406DN mentioned earlier and pre-conceived decisions already created by the public, without any facts.

One of the key aspects that stuck -

This shows how silly jurors have become... even further. Thankfully, the Judge was blown away when a jury opted to plaid mode hyper-speed! Haha! Top it off: It turned to a confidential settlement between McDonalds and the lady who flipped her hot coffee she had between her legs onto her sweatpants.

700 complaints over "too hot coffee" from McDonalds - WORLDWIDE. Hmmm... 700 complaints of hot coffee... Rocket Science anyone? 38,000 McDonalds. How many coffee's served each day?... 700 complaints. Let's add to this:
McDonalds sells over 500 million cups of coffee annually. Rocket Science, anyone?

0.0000014% of it's coffee cups sold received complaints their coffee was too hot. Take this even further: That was 700 complaints of hot coffee <period>! Not just in one year that the 0.0000014% was calculated.

But hey, McDonalds settled a few of those complaints so they must be at fault, correct? Not a chance in hell. Settlements are to minimize expense for legal fights and less exposure to ridiculous Jury awards! <Insert PRIME EXAMPLE, Hot coffee, McDonalds>

The real lesson was that they could have settled for under $5,000 even as late as a week before trial, but their arrogance (including the judges noting of arrogancy of McDs key corporate witness) got them smacked. As some around here say, "stupid prizes for stupid games."

Businesses have to be smart about many things, incl. litigation management. Failure on any of these things can be costly.

 

[Sytes]

This was a bankruptcy trustee and 3 insurance companies closing out the books - this was not a jury finding of fact, a judicial finding or an active firearms business making a business decision. This version of Rem is dead and no longer exists. An active company would have probably fought, as I would guess they had a better than 50-50 shot at winning.

I commented to this effect earlier... media has pondered it as Remington. Also, I believe it was 4 insurers.

 

[TheJason]

A fact many are overlooking is all of Remingtons internal documents were on review here, to include knowledge of potential culpability.

I highly doubt the insurers paid out simply to sell gun owners own the road. They paid out so they didn’t potentially pay more out.