• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

California judge: Shooting victims, families can sue Smith & Wesson, gun shop

mikeyp

NES Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
14,511
Likes
29,552
Location
Plymouth
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
This shit again :rolleyes: :mad:


SAN DIEGO — A California judge decided victims of the 2019 synagogue shooting near San Diego that killed one worshiper and wounded three can sue the manufacturer of the semiautomatic rifle and the gun shop that sold it to the teenage gunman, according to a newspaper report.

Superior Court Judge Kenneth Medel said Wednesday that victims and families in the Poway, California, synagogue shooting have adequately alleged that Smith & Wesson, the nation’s largest gunmaker, knew its AR-15-style rifle could be easily modified into a machine-gun-like or an assault weapon in violation of state law.

A 2005 federal law shields gunmakers from damages in most cases for crimes committed with their weapons. But it allows lawsuits if the manufacturer was negligent or knowingly violated a state or federal law, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Thursday.
 
I now want to sue automakers for every car accident as well as all alcohol Companies and distribution centers. They all know that people drink in excess then drive. Under a similar line of thought. They could make the drink without alcohol or deliver limited amounts to prevent over consumption. Car makers could install technology in the cars that prevent impaired driving.

Let’s sue knife makers and steel plants under the same pretense.

let’s sue politicians who create laws that drive people to their breaking point and go on a killdozer like mission.
Let’s sue judges who put violent people back on the streets and hold them accountable for any crimes that where committed by the person they let go.
God this country is F’d
 
Second largest gun manufacturer ? Not even close. Ruger is first, Sig Sauer second.

By 2019 dollars, Ruger is fourth and Sig is eighth. Smith is first.

 
I think judges should be sued for letting violent criminals repeatedly out to cause more Mayham on the citizens of this country.

While the thought of holding government employees responsible for their actions is strong, your thought would cause many more problems than it would fix.
 
I think judges should be sued for letting violent criminals repeatedly out to cause more Mayham on the citizens of this country.

I've said it before(may have posted it on here) but judges should have a malpractice type insurance. This way they let someone out(parole etc.) and they do something(rape, kill) while out, the judge's insurance gets hit to pay for the settlement. Shit would change REAL fast
 
Sueing the maker of a product for someone else buying the product and then misusing said product. Sure judge open that Pandora's box and see what happens. The sky's the limit. These activist judges are extremely dangerous to the public at large
 
I've said it before(may have posted it on here) but judges should have a malpractice type insurance. This way they let someone out(parole etc.) and they do something(rape, kill) while out, the judge's insurance gets hit to pay for the settlement. Shit would change REAL fast

Judges are already almost unaccountable. Your solution would just exacerbate that. I'd be interested in things that make them accountable. Such as contracts that require citizen oversight, term limits/elections. Something to make them accountable is my.hope, not a fund for paying out victims when they make mistakes.
 
Such as? Making them accountable? The horror!

Re-read my first line, I am advocating for personal responsibility. What you proposed would take ANY incentive away for a judge to find anyone guilty. None of them would be willing to risk a lawsuit so you'd see far more violent criminals walking with you system.
 
Judges are already almost unaccountable. Your solution would just exacerbate that. I'd be interested in things that make them accountable. Such as contracts that require citizen oversight, term limits/elections. Something to make them accountable is my.hope, not a fund for paying out victims when they make mistakes.

How? If their insurance has to pay out, like other insurances, their rates go up. No deductions, or tax write-offs or anything. They let someone out who commits a crime, victims get a payout, insurance goes up. I think it would slow down a lot of the repeat or really bad offenders being let out
 
How? If their insurance has to pay out, like other insurances, their rates go up. No deductions, or tax write-offs or anything. They let someone out who commits a crime, victims get a payout, insurance goes up. I think it would slow down a lot of the repeat or really bad offenders being let out

First of all, you know insurance premiums will be part of the compensation. So paying it will will never be a burden on a judge.

Secondly, the penalty will be paid out by insurance. The judge will likely never take this into consideration. He'd be more inclined to approve a bad plea deal to avoid making decisions.

I'm not against your idea, but it would have little consequence. System protects system, and insurance will just add another layer of bullsht.
 
Re-read my first line, I am advocating for personal responsibility. What you proposed would take ANY incentive away for a judge to find anyone guilty. None of them would be willing to risk a lawsuit so you'd see far more violent criminals walking with you system.
I think you are mistaken on what I meant. I think the judges should be sued when they continually let violent criminals out to victimize law-abiding citizens. I think you have what my meaning is backwards.
 
I think you are mistaken on what I meant. I think the judges should be sued when they continually let violent criminals out to victimize law-abiding citizens. I think you have what my meaning is backwards.

Not mistaken at all. I just think there are better, more effective, ways to insure personal responsibility.
 
Back
Top Bottom