Adam Lanza's first victim will pay the damages for the rest of them.

[Bronzeage]

16 families split $1.5 million

It's an ironic twist, but Nancy Lanza's estate will be divided among the survivors of the Sandyhook massacre. No one has said how much the lawyers get out of the deal. Other lawsuits against the Bushmaster, the manufacturer of Nancy's assault rifle are still in progress. That's where the real money is, for the lawyers, at least.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Too bad he didn't shoot the lawyers going after Bushmaster.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

16 families split $1.5 million

It's an ironic twist, but Nancy Lanza's estate will be divided among the survivors of the Sandyhook massacre. No one has said how much the lawyers get out of the deal. Other lawsuits against the Bushmaster, the manufacturer of Nancy's assault rifle are still in progress. That's where the real money is, for the lawyers, at least.

What is the basis for suing them? Wasn't the gun was used as it was manufactured to be used.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Too bad he didn't shoot the lawyers going after Bushmaster.

Right, because the solution to injustice is more vigilante slaughter.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Too bad he didn't shoot the lawyers going after Bushmaster.

Right, because the solution to injustice is more vigilante slaughter.

I think he meant the lawyers in lieu of the children. Of course, there is nothing ethically wrong with building a weapon that can be used to murder a score of people with ease. Assuming you can make a profit doing so.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Right, because the solution to injustice is more vigilante slaughter.

I think he meant the lawyers in lieu of the children. Of course, there is nothing ethically wrong with building a weapon that can be used to murder a score of people with ease. Assuming you can make a profit doing so.

Well, the lawsuit isn't aimed at Bushmaster for building the gun, but the distributor for making it available to people who don't have a position of moral superiority to murder a score of people with ease.

 

[Derec]

Well, the lawsuit isn't aimed at Bushmaster for building the gun, but the distributor for making it available to people who don't have a position of moral superiority to murder a score of people with ease.

Didn't they sell it to the mother rather than the shooter?
It smacks more of Saul Goodmanesque tactics than anything else.

 

[dismal]

The lawsuit against the mother, ironic though it may be, seems a bit legally shaky as well.

Though I'm not sure who is there to fight it. I wonder who stands to inherit the estate.

 

[Bronzeage]

The lawsuit against the mother, ironic though it may be, seems a bit legally shaky as well.

Though I'm not sure who is there to fight it. I wonder who stands to inherit the estate.

The damage awards are being paid by her homeowner's insurance company. I imagine it's her wrap around liability clause which is covering this. She has another son, who up to this point, has not murdered any school children.

 

[Ford]

Too bad he didn't shoot the lawyers going after Bushmaster.

Right, because the solution to injustice is more vigilante slaughter.

Well to be fair, "vigilante slaughter" is kinda what the gun lobby deals in. Of course they don't phrase it that way. It is "a good guy with a gun" stopping crime...not armed citizens engaging in vigilantism..

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Right, because the solution to injustice is more vigilante slaughter.

I think he meant the lawyers in lieu of the children. Of course, there is nothing ethically wrong with building a weapon that can be used to murder a score of people with ease. Assuming you can make a profit doing so.

Yeah--the children were innocent. The lawyers are scumbags, going after the manufacturer is just deep-pockets crap. The only time that sort of thing has merit is when they had something actively to do with the problem. (Example: Local case with a doc who was cutting corners. The insurance company knew there were issues but kept him on the list because he was cheap. That willful blindness has earned them multiple lawsuits. The same case has also resulted in an unjustified deep-pockets judgment against a drug manufacturer for the sin of providing vials larger than single use--never mind that they would never be handled by anyone other than a highly trained professional who would know how to handle them safely.)

- - - Updated - - -

The lawsuit against the mother, ironic though it may be, seems a bit legally shaky as well.

Though I'm not sure who is there to fight it. I wonder who stands to inherit the estate.

I do think it's justified. She knew there were issues, she stored firearms so he could get to them.

 

[ronburgundy]

The lawsuit against the mother, ironic though it may be, seems a bit legally shaky as well.

Though I'm not sure who is there to fight it. I wonder who stands to inherit the estate.

I do think it's justified. She knew there were issues, she stored firearms so he could get to them.

Agreed. In fact, I don't think it matters that she knew he had emotional issues. Any parent that has weapons designed to kill many people with ease is liable for any child they allow in their house using those weapons to do so. By definition, any time a child gets ahold of the gun, proper steps to ensure they couldn't were not taken. And no this does not apply to other dangerous things in the household, only to objects specifically designed to allow killing people quickly and easily.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I do think it's justified. She knew there were issues, she stored firearms so he could get to them.

Agreed. In fact, I don't think it matters that she knew he had emotional issues. Any parent that has weapons designed to kill many people with ease is liable for any child they allow in their house using those weapons to do so. By definition, any time a child gets ahold of the gun, proper steps to ensure they couldn't were not taken. And no this does not apply to other dangerous things in the household, only to objects specifically designed to allow killing people quickly and easily.

What child do you refer to????

 

[Toni]

I do think it's justified. She knew there were issues, she stored firearms so he could get to them.

Agreed. In fact, I don't think it matters that she knew he had emotional issues. Any parent that has weapons designed to kill many people with ease is liable for any child they allow in their house using those weapons to do so. By definition, any time a child gets ahold of the gun, proper steps to ensure they couldn't were not taken. And no this does not apply to other dangerous things in the household, only to objects specifically designed to allow killing people quickly and easily.

Adam Lanza was 20 when he killed his mother, children and staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary, and then took his own life. He was not a child. In fact, he practiced the hobby of target shooting with his mother and his brother.

 

[credoconsolans]

So, by the time it's all said and done, the families might get enough money that will barely cover funeral expenses or medical bills and the son who didn't hurt anyone will be left penniless.

 

[Toni]

So, by the time it's all said and done, the families might get enough money that will barely cover funeral expenses or medical bills and the son who didn't hurt anyone will be left penniless.

Not penniless. He is a fully functioning self sufficient adult with a college degree and a good job. And a rich daddy. And a tragic family legacy.

 

[credoconsolans]

So, by the time it's all said and done, the families might get enough money that will barely cover funeral expenses or medical bills and the son who didn't hurt anyone will be left penniless.

Not penniless. He is a fully functioning self sufficient adult with a college degree and a good job. And a rich daddy. And a tragic family legacy.

A daddy that appears to have abandoned the family some time ago.

The son is still the rightful inheritor, but they left him nothing?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Not penniless. He is a fully functioning self sufficient adult with a college degree and a good job. And a rich daddy. And a tragic family legacy.

A daddy that appears to have abandoned the family some time ago.

The son is still the rightful inheritor, but they left him nothing?

Yea, that's awful. He's going to have rely on himself and earn a living.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not penniless. He is a fully functioning self sufficient adult with a college degree and a good job. And a rich daddy. And a tragic family legacy.

A daddy that appears to have abandoned the family some time ago.

The son is still the rightful inheritor, but they left him nothing?

Claims against the estate are resolved before inheritance.

 

[Toni]

Not penniless. He is a fully functioning self sufficient adult with a college degree and a good job. And a rich daddy. And a tragic family legacy.

A daddy that appears to have abandoned the family some time ago.

The son is still the rightful inheritor, but they left him nothing?

If it is her home owners insurance that is paying the claim as mentioned up thread then he can still inherit from her property, etc. I don't know that he had much of a relationship with his brother or mother since the divorce. It is a tragic situation all around but the least tragic part is if the surviving adult sson cannot inherit as much money.