PDA

View Full Version : Maddow Blasts Law Requiring Aurora Shooting Victim's Parents To Pay Gun Manufacturers



Rockntractor
05-22-2015, 07:40 PM
Rachel Maddow debuted an Outrage-O-Meter on her show Thursday night, and quickly put it to the test with a story about the ongoing trial of James Holmes, who opened fire in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, in July 2012.

Maddow opened her show with heart-rending footage of the Aurora trial. She highlighted the testimony of Brenton Lowak, whose friend Jessica Ghawi -- a 24-year-old aspiring sports reporter -- died in the shooting.
Here’s the part that set off the Outrage-O-Meter: Jessica's parents have been ordered by a judge in Colorado to pay $220,000 to the gun manufacturers who sold Holmes his weapon.
The parents unsuccessfully sued the retailers who made the firearm that killed their daughter. Colorado state law requires that plaintiffs who sue the manufacturers of gun products pay the companies' legal fees if they lose.
“That’s not a typo,” Maddow said, adding, “The mother and father of the victim who died in the Aurora mass shooting have just been ordered to pay a quarter-million dollars to the gun makers who sold the bullets that were used in the Aurora mass shooting -- the parents of the girl who was killed.”
“If you, for whatever reason, sue anyone having to do with the making of guns and if, for any reason, you lose that lawsuit, you’re going to have to pay -- big,” Maddow continued. “It only goes that one direction, too.”
Moe>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/22/maddow-aurora-shooting_n_7421414.html

Just as it should be.

NJCardFan
05-22-2015, 10:51 PM
You see, Rachael, suing the gun/ammo manufacturer as well as suing the shop who sold them would be like suing Ford or Jack Daniels or the car dealership because someone drove drunk and killed someone. It's simply not their fault. The parents of this girl tried to hold the wrong people liable and lost and it cost the manufacturer a lot of money so since they filed the frivolous lawsuit, they should be made to pay.

RobJohnson
05-23-2015, 02:25 AM
You see, Rachael, suing the gun/ammo manufacturer as well as suing the shop who sold them would be like suing Ford or Jack Daniels or the car dealership because someone drove drunk and killed someone. It's simply not their fault. The parents of this girl tried to hold the wrong people liable and lost and it cost the manufacturer a lot of money so since they filed the frivolous lawsuit, they should be made to pay.




I agree.

FlaGator
05-23-2015, 09:43 AM
Loser pays should be the law of the land for all civil law suits. It would go a long way to reducing the number of frivolous law suits and it would make sure the ambulance chasers would only take cases they know they could win if defendant decided to go to trial.

djones520
05-23-2015, 10:05 AM
My heart goes out to them for their loss, but that does not give them a free pass for malicious litigation like they tried. They want to see the law provide justice to the person who killed their child, they should expect to be beholden to the same law.

SVPete
05-23-2015, 12:44 PM
Does CO's Losers Pay law apply only to gun manufacturers? My guess is that it is not.

While I'm sure Losers Pay laws are not perfect, they tend to discourage frivolous lawsuits and agenda-driven lawfare lawsuits. Both rely on defendants (or their insurance companies) settling because doing so is usually cheaper than fighting and winning.

noonwitch
05-26-2015, 09:29 AM
Rachel could start a fund so that people can donate money for the family to use to pay their fines. After all, if they are so outraged over the ruling, they should put their money where their mouths are.

RobJohnson
05-27-2015, 05:15 AM
Rachel could start a fund so that people can donate money for the family to use to pay their fines. After all, if they are so outraged over the ruling, they should put their money where their mouths are.

Good point.