Parents of Aurora shooting victim drop appeal

[george]

http://www.guns.com/2015/07/28/parents-of-aurora-shooting-victim-drop-appeal-face-bankruptcy-after-lucky-gunner-suit-video/
And even after this, they still think it's someone else s fault other than the people who do the attack.
They never said anything about the crazy people who did it. I will NEVER understand why some think it's never the fault of the people committing the crime.
And where is the Brady Bunch when the court costs come up ? All in All I'm glad it's going to cost them big for such a dumb suit.

“The NRA lawyers defended lucky gunner. It’s their money that’s behind this lawsuit. They’re making an example of Sandy and I. They don’t want anybody to file any suit against firearm dealers of any kind,” said Lonnie Philipps in an interview with MSNBC.

They must have thought the dealer had better insurance than the shooter or the theater, wasn't that theater posted ? Where was security ?

With attorneys from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the couple sued Lucky Gunner and other retailers with the intended goal of changing company policy and ultimately public policy in regard to gun and ammo sales as opposed to monetary gain.

WELL WELL, The Brady bunch represented them and still Stuck them with the bill. GOOD FOR THEM !!!

[Rip Van Winkle]

WELL WELL, The Brady bunch represented them and still Stuck them with the bill. GOOD FOR THEM !!!

The old adage, "with friends like these..." is going through my mind.

[Randygmn]

I feel nothing but disdain, or worse, for those who would try to legislatively impose infringements upon MY rights. I hope Lucky Gunner forces them to sell everything they own to satisfy this judgement, including their home.

[BBeckwith]

Yes... Because the way to win over the middle is to appear vindictive and bankrupt a middle class family.

Did the family make a bad decision, yes they were lead down a path by an organization that preyed on them for a political gain. Should the gun community drive them further into the ground? I think it is a bad move. Lucky Gunner has already decided to absorb the legal cost they incurred by giving away their awarded judgement. (ETA, I am not aware of legal cost was covered by an outside organization)

If they want to help win over the middle, Lucky Gunner should work with their legal team to keep this family from bankruptcy while taking a smaller award to apply somewhere some how.

My $.02


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hmac]

Yes... Because the way to win over the middle is to appear vindictive and bankrupt a middle class family.

Did the family make a bad decision, yes they were lead down a path by an organization that preyed on them for a political gain. Should the gun community drive them further into the ground? I think it is a bad move. Lucky Gunner has already decided to absorb the legal cost they incurred by giving away their awarded judgement. (ETA, I am not aware of legal cost was covered by an outside organization)

If they want to help win over the middle, Lucky Gunner should work with their legal team to keep this family from bankruptcy while taking a smaller award to apply somewhere some how.

They aren't bankrupted. They owe Lucky Gunner $200,000 for court costs. They could appeal the ruling, but if they lost the appeal they would lose enough additional money (maybe $500K) that they would be bankrupted.

If they weren't in danger of bankruptcy, they would still be pursuing the case. I think Lucky Gunner is playing this game very well.

[yukonjasper]

I don't disagree that, theoretically, winning people over should be a goal. I do think that you under estimate how entrenched people's views are. If these people embarked on the path they did, I highly doubt that they could be persuaded to think differently. I am not of the mind that you attack with malice.

[BBeckwith]

I'm not saying that they can be won over... I'm saying Joe Blow middle class that reads an article that states gun groups bankrupt victims parents are the ones that need to be won over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BBeckwith]

As for the article it was early and read it that the $200K was enough to put them into bankruptcy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[george]

They may have been victimized by the Brady Bunch to proceed in this manner. They would have likely been better served going after the theater chain who posts NO GUNS
without providing any type of security.
I've always said, posting anything can make one liable in some form, especially now days.
I feel no sympathy on the law suit, I do for their daughter.

[Rip Van Winkle]

I'm not saying that they can be won over... I'm saying Joe Blow middle class that reads an article that states gun groups bankrupt victims parents are the ones that need to be won over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

First, Lucky Gunner didn't cost these vindictive idiots a dime, they did it to themselves, and I'm betting against their attorney's advice.

Second, if the brady campaign had an ounce of integrity or honor, they'd be footing the bill.

Lastly, if Joe Blow middle class doesn't have the mental faculties to understand this, they can't be won over anyway.

[george]

Rip Van Winkle"

Second, if the brady campaign had an ounce of integrity or honor, they'd be footing the bill.

They Don't, Won"t and Never Will..... I would wager they are right now looking for another opportunity to further there cause at the cost of anyone.

[MXGreg]

Don't know how much you guys trust blog posts, but it looks like Lonnie and Sandy Phillips may have become employees of the Brady bunch after their daughter's death and before the law suit. Lonnie is listed as an Operations Manager and Sandy is a Campaign Manager.

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/20 ... hings.html

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/20 ... paign.html

[Hmac]

They may have been victimized by the Brady Bunch to proceed in this manner. They would have likely been better served going after the theater chain who posts NO GUNS
without providing any type of security.

BINGO on both points!

[xd ED]

They may have been victimized by the Brady Bunch to proceed in this manner. They would have likely been better served going after the theater chain who posts NO GUNS
without providing any type of security.

BINGO on both points!

They would have likely been better served going after the theater chain who posts NO GUNS without providing any type of security.

This idea gets brought up frequently when there's a shooting in a posted establishment.
Setting aside the moral argument that the shooter is the responsible party for the misery and mayhem,

Are there legal precedents that suggest success for pursuing a claim against an establishment that posted, or otherwise banned guns and then had a shooting take place?
The interweb lawyer in me thinks this would be a nonstarter.

[Hmac]

They may have been victimized by the Brady Bunch to proceed in this manner. They would have likely been better served going after the theater chain who posts NO GUNS
without providing any type of security.

BINGO on both points!

They would have likely been better served going after the theater chain who posts NO GUNS without providing any type of security.

This idea gets brought up frequently when there's a shooting in a posted establishment.
Setting aside the moral argument that the shooter is the responsible party for the misery and mayhem,

Are there legal precedents that suggest success for pursuing a claim against an establishment that posted, or otherwise banned guns and then had a shooting take place?
The interweb lawyer in me thinks this would be a nonstarter.

I'm not necessarily saying it's a practical argument...just that it's a more rationale argument than suing an ammo dealer. That was a predictable loser from the outset. I'd be pissed if I'd been led down that silly path.