DL Open Thread Wednesday Feb 16 2022
Truth, Justice Settlements and the American Way
Remington settles with Sandy Hook families for $73 million – Prince Andrew settles with Virginia Giuffre for $? million(s)
- The civil court case in Connecticut centered on Remington’s marketing of the gun used in the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
- The lawsuit tested the scope of the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which grants gun manufacturers immunity from lawsuits related to crimes committed with their products.
I get that the Sandy Hook families needed to find a new villain since the murderer of their kids died in the process, but going after gun manufacturers doesn’t address the root of the problem. Sandy hook was perpetrated by crazy person, which is the common thread extending back to columbine and continues through the most recent Michigan school shooting.
Personally, I blame Reagan and the de-institutionalization movement of the late 70’s and 80’s. There is no longer an infrastructure to deal with people who are not right in the head, no fire alarm that can be pulled to get someone in front of a panel of doctors and a judge for an involuntary commitment.
As a society, we deserve to know how these monsters are made. Lanza was a “neurodivergent” who was coddled by soft mother. Its possible that that psychotropic drugs were used but the full family medical history was never made part of the public record. The real crime is that there are no longer any back wards we can park these monsters.
Remarkably stupid words of wisdumb from a clueless troll yearning to be coddled by anyone with a sense of decency who can direct him to that “back-ward” where monsters, such as he, can share their absurdities.
Representative John Kowalko
I’m starting to think he’s giving Claymont a bad name.
Retired?
Sounds like the rankings of a true ammosexual……”Guns don’t kill people, people do!”…..Fucking lame
“going after gun manufacturers doesn’t address the root of the problem.”
So what? We should break the causal chain at every point we can, root or not.
“…going after gun manufacturers doesn’t address the root of the problem.”
And yet, in countries where gun manufacturers are barred from marketing military weapons to civilians Sandy Hook doesn’t happen. This isn’t complicated.
…those countries also generally happen to have robust mental health systems. School and “random” mass shootings were exceedingly uncommon in the years preceding the assault weapons ban, in an era where firearm access was more liberalized. What changed? 1) the emergence of the “autism spectrum” diagnoses 2) liberalized attitudes toward people with severe mental illness 3) a flood of psychotropic drugs on the market, many of which do know have clearly understood methods of action
The root of the gun problem is the open-ended Second Amendment and its interpretation as a absolute right for individuals. Assuming we can’t change the Second Amendment, the law must disrupt the chain of gun violence at every other point, even if not the root.
Best local news I’ve read in a long while:
https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2022/02/16/nomad-bar-wilmington-back-bands-beers-community/6785753001/
Best spot in the city. All hail Nomad. All hail Billy!
This is quite simple if you’re not a moron: Mental illness exists everywhere, and it doesn’t produce mass shootings in countries that don’t have our loose gun laws.
Claymonster, if you’re going to post such stupid shit, at least use your real name so we can avoid you IRL.
i must have touched a raw nerve. Yeah, mental illness is part of the human condition, but in a typical American self-defeating fashion, we have let it fester on the streets after dismantling a world class network of public institutions. I can’t think of a place in the developed world that has a worse mental health system.
Because you can’t find a place in the developed world that has a worse health care system, period.
The raw nerve you touched is the one that makes me sensitive to dumbassery. You have exhibited quite a bit of it in your short time here, which brings up the question: Why are you here?
Simply put, I have always found right-wing politics (on the whole) off-putting and in the last 10 years or so, dangerous. I find young, progressive left wing politics too difficult to navigate and filled with self destructive impulses and infighting. The DL crowd skews older and a bit more sensible – no tankies here! I think people here are generally reasonable and have thick skins, and are willing to engage. Case in point – Rob and El Som will have a little back and forth, but they don’t have a falling out every week. this is where legitimate political discourse actually happens
Christ Al, You know trolls got to be trolls, callous selfish a-holes got to be callous selfish a-holes, anonymous cowards got to be anonymous cowards and “soft” mothers got to love and coddle the monsters/Claymonsters they have spawned.
John Kowalko
On settlements: I get that the Remington settlement was for a violation of a civil statute about marketing, so there was a civil trial resulting in a cash settlement.
But the Giuffre settlement was about felony rape, and I don’t understand: How can criminal felonies be tried in civil court, much less result in a cash settlement?
My stubborn (stupid?) misunderstanding of the law is: If you have a civil complaint take it to civil court, But if you have a felony take it to the police, and if there is enough evidence, The People will bring it to criminal court.
I don’t get how felonies are brought to civil court, unless the civil court is willing to pretend it is something other than a criminal felony.
They’re separate things. There might not be enough evidence for a prosecution in a criminal trial, where the burden of proof must overcome the presumption of innocence. In a civil trial, the plaintiff is only required to show by a preponderance of evidence that the injury was likely to have occurred.
You might remember similar conditions around the OJ Simpson case — not guilty criminally, but liable for damages in the civil trial.
Yes, I know the “preponderance of evidence” rule. I just wish I knew more about the technical aspects of how felonies manage to get brought before civil court.
“You might remember similar conditions around the OJ Simpson case — not guilty criminally, but liable for damages in the civil trial.”
That’s one thing, but I don’t think the Giuffre case was ever tried in criminal court. If I were a civil judge and received a rape complaint, I’d like to think my next call would be to the police to report the criminal felony and turn over any evidence.
Personally, I find civil trials of unsuccessful criminal prosecutions offensive. That brings to mind when Mom won’t give you money for the ice cream man, you ask Grandma with her lower standards.
Different things are at stake. In a criminal case your freedom is at risk. In a civil case it’s just money. You often will see civil trials follow successful prosecutions of people with means, because a criminal proceeding usually doesn’t result in restitution except for actually stolen money. “Damages” aren’t assessed in a criminal proceeding.
Let me put it another way. In the Remington case, there was violation of a civil statute with no parallel in criminal law.
But in the Giuffre case, the civil rape complaint has an obvious parallel in the criminal law. Personally I would think the criminal avenue should be exhausted first, and complainants should not be court-shopping for lower standards of proof.
The case was criminally prosecuted, if you’ll recall. Epstein was convicted.
Prosecuting Andrew would be substantially harder, because you would have to prove that he knew she was both underage and being forced into sex. That’s incredibly hard to do, unless, say, you got G. Maxwell to testify that she told him those things before they fucked.
I wouldn’t call this guy (Claymonster) a troll. He just sometimes has a point of view most people here don’t agree with. And the refutations from the regulars are interesting. He makes his case clearly enough even when it’s a “wrong” one. Kowalko’s the one here flinging insults. Your call, of course. I’m not losing sleep over it.
“He makes his case clearly enough even when it’s a “wrong”. So his case is that Joe Biden is/has been a bad parent. That a viable option for the Biden’s or any other family (rich or poor) is to seek institutionalization of loved ones or children. That’s not a “point of view” that’s a callous disregard for human suffering and pain and it’s the typical right wing tactic. I’ll gladly and proudly “fling” insults at those types of neanderthal thinkers.
Representative John Kowalko