10-08-2004 19:54									#121
	Re: Pure Idiocy - The American Tort System Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd But they said the gun maker also was liable because the pistol could only be unloaded when its trigger safety catch was switched off. Ruggieri maintains that Jimenez is only a front for the wealthy Jennings, who in a 1999 interview with Business Week magazine said that if his company were sued, he would "go away until the litigation passes by, then re-form and build guns to the new standard — if there is a new standard." *************** Come on, this is outrageous. First of all, the gun was not in any way defective. The babysitter may have been mentally defective, but that's hardly the fault of the gun manufacturer. Sure, the gun has to have the safety off in order to unload - but that's a convenience and a self-defense issue, and it certainly was not an illegal design mechanism, nor a hidden one that no one knew about. Basically, a gun manufacturer is getting screwed by the American tort system - and by a victim who, quite frankly, is being selfish - for no reason other than a lawyer was able to a)manipulate the jury selection process to his benefit (he probably had a bunch of soccor moms on the jury), and b)convince the twelve retards that the gun manufacturer had partial responsibility for the actions of the babysitter. This is just indicative of the "blame someone else, preferably someone with money" mindset of tort lawyers, mindless juries, and worst of all, US tort laws

Yeah, like you Floyd. Didn't you go and register for the draft like a good little sheep so you could go to UT? Let's see, the jury found a product defect. Gee, that was tough. Nothing that the designers couldn't anticipate and have changed, but in the Floydiverse, blame shifting is selective.

And gee, that manipulated jury of soccer moms. Obviously, only one party's counsel was allowed to participate in voir dire.

And gee, using the bankruptcy system to thwart a creditor, exactly like you bragged you would do so in a prior magazine interview. Nope, no "blame" there - manipulate the legal system while *****ing you're a victim of the legal system being manipulated.

Oh, and of course the quadriplegic is being selfish, because widdle Fwoydy might have one less gun manufacturer out of dozens from which he can buy a cheap-assed piece.

	10-08-2004 20:04									#122
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I see my side of the argument has been adequately argued by KH and Asher . A few points:

I'm sorry I was inadequate.

ACK!

	10-08-2004 20:20									#123
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

now, this COULD have been avoided when normal people aren't allowed to own guns, no ?

or perhaps they could be allowed to own guns, but only so in a shooting club where they can be supervised while using them.

	10-08-2004 20:41									#124
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Tuberski At a hearing in Jacksonville next week,

Why did I know my lame-ass city had something to do with this?

	10-08-2004 20:42									#125
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: I'm sorry I was inadequate.

Sorry, you too .

	10-08-2004 21:28									#126
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd No, the obvious thing to take away from this is to hold people accountable for their own actions. Thus, when a babysitter shoots a child due to his own idiocy, hold the babysitter responsible. For God's sake, everyone who knows anything about guns knows to point the damn thing away from other people when maintaining, loading, or unloading (not to mention shooting, except obviously in self defense - then you want to exercise good gun control by hitting the target ).

you crack me up... the gun is defective... SOMEONE IS ****IGN PARALYZED... and you think it's bad that the gun manufacturer is held accountable. I guess you like holding the little people accountable, but if a company makes a defective product that hurts or kills someone, they should not be penalyzed.

	11-08-2004 00:59									#127
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

This tort decision comes no where near pure idiocy. While david floyd disagrees this is largely colored by his view that everyone should be allowed their own personal thermonuclear device.

To the rest of us, this decision actually looks reasonable and fair. The jury was not blinded to the mistakes of the parent and the babysitter and attributed some fault there. On the gun manufacturer I can easily see the causality behind their design decision and the injury. I can also see where designing a gun that cannot be reloaded with the safety on would fail to meet the test of reasonable care. To me a higher liability for the distributor would be tenuous but distributing a product with this defect would could be seen as a failure to exercize reasonable care on their part

	11-08-2004 01:05									#128
	Put an end to popups!

Oh as an aside, I also don't have much time for the blame someone else mentality of many torts.

I find lawsuits against fast food joints for your obesity to be to be stupid. Also if a person is shot by a gun, I don't have much sympathy for suing the gun manufacturer unless

1. there was something unsafe about the gun that made it likely for an accidental discharge to occurr
OR
2. In instances where a gun was marketed intentionally to criminal elements. I'm sorry, but to mme when you promote a gun as being made of fingerprint resistent materials and then specifically provide them to gun dealers in distribution chains designed to avoide criminal records checks, its reasonable to assume that your gun will be used for crime

	11-08-2004 01:20									#129
	Suffering from ads?

This is a pretty clear case, IMO. The gun manufacturer absolutely has liability here, because their design sucked. Safety OFF to unload? That's just patently stupid.

Almost as dumb as the babysitter. I'll still go with that person as the most-at-fault here, with the gun manufacturer 2nd and the gun retailer a distant third.

The fact is, however, that a private party such as the babysitter is never going to be able to make much of a contribution to a massive jury award such as this. Manufacturers know this, and plan accordingly (desiging products to be relatively idjit proof, and of course buying insurance). This outfit was running fast 'n loose and got burned. Excuse me while I shed a tear for them.

-Arrian

	11-08-2004 04:14									#130
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Asher Wait, you need to take the safety off to unload it? As someone who detests guns, perhaps it is just my insanely high IQ that tells me this is stupid. As far as I'm concerned that's a crucial flaw in the design, one that contributed heavily to this incident. And Floyd, don't be stupid: quote: the gun has to have the safety off in order to unload - but that's a convenience ... issue Do you understand the point of a safety? So why the hell are you discussing "convenience issues"?

my gun doesn't even have a safety glock 17 btw.