So this is actually a pretty slick move by Remington.
They chose to do something so egregious and seemingly offensive that they knew the defense would immediately run to the media, since it is such a juicy story.
I think they are setting up a defense that any potential jury pool will be 'poisoned' by this information being made publicly available so they'll have to have a change of venue or push it further down the line.
I'm no lawyer but that seems to be the only feasibly reason for requesting this information...on the surface it makes no sense but if the defense falls into the trap and blows the story up it will give them more ammunition to push it down the line or claim it would be impossible to find an impartial jury.
The whole lawsuit is insane and I'm surprised it hasn't been thrown out. Remington created a tool for killing and it did exactly what it was designed to do. The victims weren't part of the transaction. It's also explicitly legal in the US to own and create such weapons. There was no negligence on the company's part. The tool didn't malfunction, it's user did. If he had used a hunting knife could they sue the knife maker?
Also, a country where a 15-year-old boy in Nebraska, named Jeremy Steen, who was raped by a 34-year-old woman named Linda Kazinsky, was ordered by a court to pay $475 a month in child support — plus $23,000 in back child support payments.
Or, in California, where a minor boy raped by an adult woman must pay child support to the woman who raped him, even if it's unequivocally proven he was drugged before the rape.
C'mon man, the hot coffee lady is classic "serious issue made to look frivolous", it's basically the OG! The coffee wasn't just hot, it was so hot she got third degree burns within seconds of it spilling. Hundreds of people had received similar injuries in the years prior. Someone from McDonald's even testified that the temperature the coffee was served at was too hot to safely drink! I don't know about you, but I expect to be able to drink a coffee right after I buy it, not have to wait several minutes for it to cool enough that I won't be badly injured by it.
I disagree and especially if it's a drink being given in a drive through, most people probably expect it to be hot for several minutes after getting it.
I can see what they're going for; however, I don't see how they could think it would work in any conceivable way.
Even if the theories surrounding the event were true, do they really think something as simple as what they're requesting couldn't just as easily be fabricated?
Honestly, I'm not going to comment too much on it, since it's not something I've followed much, besides the cursory passing knowledge, so I'm unable to hold an opinion either way on what's what.
Like I've said, I haven't kept in the loop enough to form a solid view one way or another; however, I'm sure I'll look into it eventually. It seems interesting enough at least.
Wow, that's a lot to digest. Thank you for taking the time to give me some quick bullet points. I'll definitely be sure to look further into things and seek out some videos and such.
It seems crazy that there's such a large list of inconsistencies that no one in media seems to care about. Although, given who they are and how their primary goal is activism and not journalism, maybe I shouldn't be surprised.
I remember seeing that video before. The first time I saw it I was baffled as well, because before he believes the cameras are on, that's most assuredly not the behavior and body language of someone who supposedly experienced something as traumatic as losing a 6-year-old child.
People can use the excuse "everyone handles grief differently," and they're not necessarily wrong; however, I've never seen anyone who would swagger, laugh, and smile, so immediately after losing their young child, before very plainly shifting tones, like an actor getting into character, when they believe the cameras are rolling. It just doesn't happen.
As well they should. So many years after, if those records don't exist, there's no proof the "victims" even exist.
There's a lot of other weird shit surrounding Sandy Hook involving the kids that were supposedly killed.
The best theory I've seen was that it was basically a burned child sex grooming cult.
Same thing they did to that midwestern terrorist training facility.
Most people have forgotten that that existed.
So this is actually a pretty slick move by Remington.
They chose to do something so egregious and seemingly offensive that they knew the defense would immediately run to the media, since it is such a juicy story.
I think they are setting up a defense that any potential jury pool will be 'poisoned' by this information being made publicly available so they'll have to have a change of venue or push it further down the line.
I'm no lawyer but that seems to be the only feasibly reason for requesting this information...on the surface it makes no sense but if the defense falls into the trap and blows the story up it will give them more ammunition to push it down the line or claim it would be impossible to find an impartial jury.
The whole lawsuit is insane and I'm surprised it hasn't been thrown out. Remington created a tool for killing and it did exactly what it was designed to do. The victims weren't part of the transaction. It's also explicitly legal in the US to own and create such weapons. There was no negligence on the company's part. The tool didn't malfunction, it's user did. If he had used a hunting knife could they sue the knife maker?
Also, a country where a 15-year-old boy in Nebraska, named Jeremy Steen, who was raped by a 34-year-old woman named Linda Kazinsky, was ordered by a court to pay $475 a month in child support — plus $23,000 in back child support payments.
Or, in California, where a minor boy raped by an adult woman must pay child support to the woman who raped him, even if it's unequivocally proven he was drugged before the rape.
C'mon man, the hot coffee lady is classic "serious issue made to look frivolous", it's basically the OG! The coffee wasn't just hot, it was so hot she got third degree burns within seconds of it spilling. Hundreds of people had received similar injuries in the years prior. Someone from McDonald's even testified that the temperature the coffee was served at was too hot to safely drink! I don't know about you, but I expect to be able to drink a coffee right after I buy it, not have to wait several minutes for it to cool enough that I won't be badly injured by it.
https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts
I disagree and especially if it's a drink being given in a drive through, most people probably expect it to be hot for several minutes after getting it.
I can see what they're going for; however, I don't see how they could think it would work in any conceivable way.
Even if the theories surrounding the event were true, do they really think something as simple as what they're requesting couldn't just as easily be fabricated?
Honestly, I'm not going to comment too much on it, since it's not something I've followed much, besides the cursory passing knowledge, so I'm unable to hold an opinion either way on what's what.
Right, and who could verify them anyway? That's why it's probably not the reason for Remington's request. Their lawyers may have another reason.
Based.
Like I've said, I haven't kept in the loop enough to form a solid view one way or another; however, I'm sure I'll look into it eventually. It seems interesting enough at least.
Wow, that's a lot to digest. Thank you for taking the time to give me some quick bullet points. I'll definitely be sure to look further into things and seek out some videos and such.
It seems crazy that there's such a large list of inconsistencies that no one in media seems to care about. Although, given who they are and how their primary goal is activism and not journalism, maybe I shouldn't be surprised.
Here's the vid regarding the parent who didn't realize he was live, prior to his speech.
I remember seeing that video before. The first time I saw it I was baffled as well, because before he believes the cameras are on, that's most assuredly not the behavior and body language of someone who supposedly experienced something as traumatic as losing a 6-year-old child.
People can use the excuse "everyone handles grief differently," and they're not necessarily wrong; however, I've never seen anyone who would swagger, laugh, and smile, so immediately after losing their young child, before very plainly shifting tones, like an actor getting into character, when they believe the cameras are rolling. It just doesn't happen.
That’s what sealed the deal for me. All fake.