Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because they said cigarettes were good for people. They lied 100%.
How did Remington LIE about the product?
I really do not understand this lawsuit.
The shooter STOLE THE RIFLE. He was NOT THE BUYER. How can that be due to marketing??? These Libs are insane. Also, you can not sue a firearms manufacturer for the ILLEGAL use of their product.
Their claim is that the "macho-ads" encourage certain individuals to violent acts. I don't know if it is a winning argument, but I would not be surprised if they get paid something.
I dont think the cigarette companies paid because they lied.
Hasn't this strategy been tried -- and failed -- with every video game manufacturer, explicit music, etc.?
Hasn't this strategy been tried -- and failed -- with every video game manufacturer, explicit music, etc.?
Yes, but liberals and their predatory lawyers will keep trying. Like their quest for socialism, keep trying despite history showing it’s an abject failure.
Well, lets never hope that a person buys a Dodge SRT.....and kills/hurts someone in an accident...
Street & Racing Technology....Look how fast you can go, burning the wheels off and all, drifting.......even if not....it's still being advertised as what you "could do."
Well, lets never hope that a person buys a Dodge SRT.....and kills/hurts someone in an accident...
Street & Racing Technology....Look how fast you can go, burning the wheels off and all, drifting.......even if not....it's still being advertised as what you "could do."
Or the advertisement where the couple intentionally moves a gate to get to a "road closed" portion of "road" and drives through a forest.
Is the car manufacturer advertising and supporting people breaking the law?
If the question were posed and plausible, however, would anyone here say that Remington is more liable than the mother?
She bought the gun(s), taught the nut to shoot, left them accessible and then had one stolen that resulted almost 30 murders. And somehow Remington is more liable than her? I just don't see it.
Does this mean we can sue the automakers for the guy/gal who kills a family in his sportscar that was advertised as a speedster that can do 0-60 in 2.5?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
