“With this many claimants, the money ends up being a symbolic gesture, but it serves as an important reminder that people who keep firearms in the home must be scrupulous about securing their weapons.” – Attorney Josh Koskoff in Families of 9 Newtown victims sue estate of shooter’s mother [at wtnh.com]
I see so many comments criticizing the families for their “greed”. These people are most likely firearms supporters and it makes us all look bad. I think the families want someone to pay, because the mother is dead and the shooter killed himself. There was no “justice”. The lawyers on the other hand are probably looking for a big settlement and a book deal.
Supports firearms?
What color is the sky on your planet?
I think he meant the “BAD” comments were made by gun supporters.
I did mean that the people making bad comments about the families are likely in support of the 2A. My comment could have been worded better.
When someone (especially a lawyer) says “It’s not about the money”…..then you can be sure that it’s ENTIRELY about the money.
Lets hope this goes nowhere.
If this firm is able to sue the homeowner’s insurance, our rates will go up if the insurance agency knows you have firearms. I have insurance for some of my handguns, because they are already registred in MI anyway. I thought the Lanza guns were secured, but the nut ball killed mommy and stole keys to get the guns? Only way to stop that would have been for mommy to take out son first.
This same law firm is also attempting to sue bushmaster, I thought there were federal laws to prevent this? I know if I made power tools,baseball bats, kitchen knives or heavy paper weights I would not want to be sued if my items were used for illegal purposes.
They aren’t suing the dead lady’s homeowners/liability policy they are suing her estate, meaning the money she had when she died so cash value of bank accounts, retirement accounts, her house,life insurance payouts, etc.
The sad thing about that is, it’s her surviving family who gets screwed even though they appear to have had the wherewithal to jump ship long before it went down at the hands of her demented son.
Goes nowhwere? Are you on crack? This one is a slam dunk. She let her known to be psychotic son have access to her rifle. If she wasn’t already dead she should be in jail. Pretty black and white. As a gun owner I control access to all of my weapons at all times. And I’m accountable if I dont.
No I am not on crack… read above. I don’t mind that the family is seeking financial restitution but they are barking up the wrong tree in trying to sue the gun manufacturer. Also remember mommy Lanza is a victim too. Should she have had son committed, yes, but she also paid with her life for that mistake. I have my firearms in safes too(except carry gun), do I feel that if this law suit is able to sue the home owners insurance we will eventually feel the pinch? Yes. Is it unreasonable for me to not want to be punished by paying higher rates because someone with mental illness went on a rampage?
I tried to respond to your first comment, didn’t post for some reason.
They aren’t suing the dead lady’s homeowners policy, they are suing her estate, that means the money that was leftover after they liquidated all of her assets and paid taxes etc when she was killed. She no longer has homeowners/liability insurance and ceased to have any the moment the wheeled her out on a cart and her surviving family sold her house/possessions.
TX300, I read the linked article again….
“The lawsuits seek to collect on Nancy Lanza’s homeowner’s insurance”
All three of you are right, and wrong, at the same time.
Strictly speaking, the plaintiffs are suing Ms. Lanza’s estate. At this point, they’re not suing the insurance company directly. Part of her estate, IS the insurance coverage. That’s what they’re trying to recover, but they’re not actually suing the insurance company, yet. They may well sue the insurance company directly down the road, if they’re unable to reach a settlement with the company.
Homeowners insurance policies typically are purchased with one year coverage period and are usually paid in advance. The policy’s expiration date is its own and does not depend upon the insured continuing to be alive. In fact, people sue deceased people’s estates and/or their auto insurance company every day when the insured died in an automobile accident and the survivors allege he/she was at fault for their injuries. It happens every day.
With homeowner’s insurance, you pay for a year’s coverage, you get a year’s coverage, regardless whether you, yourself, die during the course of that year. Where policies are paid with monthly installments, either directly or bundled with your mortgage payment, they’re still in effect and generally are only cancelled for nonpayment. The deceased’s estate may continue to make payments, or not, but it’s immaterial, anyway, as the coverage would have been in effect at the time of the events in question.
Now, whether the insurance policy would even cover this is its own question. It’s doubtful for several reasons. The proximate cause of the victims’ deaths was the killer’s commission of murder, not Ms. Lanza’s firearms storage practices. He could just as easily gone on a murderous slashing spree with a knife from her kitchen, and neither she, her insurance carrier, nor Ginsu would be liable for that, either. The fact is that the killer had never been adjudicated as a mental defective. Nothing would legally bar him from buying his own firearm. So you can’t impose some special obligation on the mother. Moreover, she took him shooting many times. Access to the firearms, then, wasn’t so much “negligence”, which a homeowner’s policy may cover, but rather an “intentional act”, which a homeowner’s policy almost certainly would not cover.
Overall, they’re free to try to collect, but there’s probably nothing much to collect. The estate has already sold the house (for $1) and the new owner, the City of Newtown, is having it demolished. Their options with the insurance company are fourfold: beg them settle (goes nowhere, as insurance companies aren’t in the business of giving away free money), guilt them into a settlement (goes nowhere, as insurance companies have no conscience), publicly shame them into settling (goes nowhere, as insurance companies deal with death and destruction and sympathetic looking plaintiffs every day and still don’t pay unless legally required), or sue them into paying (also goes nowhere as there’s no legal basis for paying these plaintiffs on this policy).
So if you’re murdered and someone steals your guns to go murder more people, you should be held accountable.
So, if someone kills you and takes your guns, it’s all your fault?
This will certainly teach Nancy Lanza a lesson. She won’t be so careless again! /sarc
Same for everyday objects you own: like knives, cars, lawnmowers, rope, electrical outlets, bleach, peanuts?
Should you be held liable for any object you own that is misused to hurt someone?
Sir, you may “own guns”, but I have a feeling you do not “get guns”
Is there evidence that the killer was either dangerous or violent? Was he a minor?
These would seem to be pretty key elements which would have to be proven to win a case.
What preexisting evidence of violent behavior exists?
He was 20.
Yes, from what I recall she had tried to have him committed on more than one occasion and his behavior was mentioned as a reason.
That’s why I feel that she was also responsible to some extent. If I was living with someone that I felt should be committed I would make damn sure they have no way to access my guns no matter what happened. Even if it meant keeping them somewhere else until the situation was resolved.
I have to believe this is just another ploy by the government to keep the Newtown incident fresh in the minds of the gun-fearing public. Ms Lanza was not even a middle-class person, and as such, her net worth was surely close to a negative value. Furthermore, what law firm would take on such a zero profit case knowing there can’t possibly be a huge payoff? Maybe some publicity, but how far will that go for them?
” As a gun owner I control access to all of my weapons at all times. And I’m accountable if I dont.”
Even if you are DEAD? That is the stupidest thing I have heard in a while.
No she wouldn’t be in jail. If she wasn’t dead, A.L. likely wouldn’t have been able to pull this off because he had been denied sales. Get a clue.
So, if I’m murdered, I’m liable for whatever my killer does with my property? Why not back it up one more step and charge me with my murder as well? Then every D.A. could claim a great closure rate.
I would agree in that Nancy did have the guns locked up. Yes, the son was a nut job. But, the person stealing her guns and killing her theoretically could have been someone else. I actually had something like this happen in my family, with my crazy uncle stealing Dad,s .22 rifle and shooting himself with it. Soooo…..Dad should be held responsible for his Brother’s actions and responsibilities?
No, her liability, if any, would be based on her alleged negligent failure to properly secure her firearms. I think the evidence is that her son got a lever action .22 (his or hers has not been specified) and used it to kill her, which gave him access to her other guns. So the big question will be how he got the first gun; once she was dead, she could not “negligently” have allowed him access to the keys that opened the gun locker. There has also been a rumor that she was about to have had him committed, as she could no longer handle him–and that is what triggered his attacks. If true, this will support the plaintiffs’ arguments that they are sure to make that she should have had better security or removed the guns from her house because she “knew or should have known” that he was a danger to himself or others.
And contrary to what Tex300blk says, her homeowner’s policy is undoubtedly still in effect for “occurrences” during the policy period; homeowner’s insurance is not contingent upon the life of the owner. Same as car insurance, Just because you die in an accident does not mean that your auto policy suddenly expires.
You cannot insure against a criminal act as far as I know so I do not understand why this even allowed to forward.
Lets say it does go forward… and they win. How hard will it now be to get homeowners insurance as a gun owner? No possible? Look at the cost of homeowners insurance riders for owners of certain breed of dogs if they are not outright banned in some towns/cities.
This could come out to be a nice backdoor gun control measure given the hard left judges in a deep blue state. Even if it is eventually overturned by a higher court, the damage will have been done.
Symbolic my a$$, who is paying for the lawsuits?
I am not the tin foil type, but last I checked, few lawyers work for free. Note, this the same guy also suing bushmaster. Look, even if he looses, imagine the Bloomberg money, speaking engagements and access to anti-gun media and politicians he will have gained!
While this may be disguised as feel good “for the children” type of litigation, there is I believe more to this.
The money is never “a symbolic gesture,” No matter who loses, the lawyers always win. Pro bono? Don’t make me laugh!
There ya’ go! (as McCloud used to say when somebody hit the nail on the head). When someone is out to “make a point” or “uphold a principle”, they might sue a miscreant individually. When they are after money, they go for a deep pocket–and usually, that means an insurance company. And in this case, the lawyer practically acknowledged that the plaintiffs themselves will probably not get much, but the lawyer doesn’t have to split his “take”.
The Attorney Josh Koskoff is an interesting character professionally, he appears to be a more “refined” version of an ambulance chaser lawyer and has pulled off some interesting “wins”.
Two credentials are that he is on the Board of Governors of the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association, and second was awarded the interesting distinction as one of Connecticut’s “New Leaders of the Law” in the annual competition sponsored by the Connecticut Law Tribune in 2004.
The “New Leaders of the Law” seems to be a award for finding new sources of revenue for Trial Lawyers.
For example:
“2003 jury award of $10 million on behalf of the widow of a 49-year old man who died because his heart condition was misdiagnosed” that included “included $4 million for the widow’s loss of consortium, the largest award of its kind in state history”. “Loss of consortium” is an interesting euphemism for marital duties, and 4 million an interesting summary of costs.
“Koskoff won $810,000 on behalf of an 89-year old woman whose doctor botched a surgery to repair a leg fracture. The doctor’s insurance company had refused to settle the case years earlier for $500,000 and offered nothing right up to the time of the trial.”
More relevent to the Lanza mass murder is this case he won, IMO because it is likely there was “carelessness and negligence” in the handling of Adam Lanza for years by professionals.
“A jury returned an $8 million verdict this week against a former Tolland physician and his employers after they were found liable for the death of a Vernon man who killed his wife and then himself in 2009.”
“James Morrin shot himself in the head after killing his wife, Alice, in June 2009. Attorneys for his estate filed a wrongful death lawsuit, claiming that the murder-suicide was the result of “carelessness and negligence” on the part of Morrin’s physician, Carl Koplin.”
ref:http://www.koskoff.com/In-the-News/Joshua-Koskoff-named-New-Leader-Of-Law-by-Connecticut-Law-Tribune.shtml
http://foxct.com/2014/01/08/doctor-who-treated-james-morrin-sued-by-mother/
“Loss of consortium” is an interesting euphemism for marital duties
“Marital duties” is an interesting euphemism for sex.
But it’s clearly worth a lot more money. /sarc
So, I did the math. And
If we assume the widow’s husband would have lived to be 86 years old.
And we further assume they only had sex once a week.
The value of sex is $2,079 per instance.
You’re welcome. 😉
If I break into your home and steal money and then use that money to buy drugs that I then sell to children and one of those children dies, would you want to be held accountable for the death of that child just because your money was used in the process? Think about the absurdity of such a thought process.
There would be more money ($523,620 appraised value) from the estate to go around but Newtown already has plans to demolish the house.
Some people would not want to live in a house where someone died, let alone where someone was murdered. I myself wouldn’t care much. During high school I lived in a house where a cop died “cleaning his gun” (suicide).
Taggert, Maj Kong, Hollis Wood – I wish I could get me some more Slim Pickens.
I wish I’d seen this comment yesterday when it was fresh. Thank you sir for making my Monday morning!
And if I’m murdered and the killer takes the keys to my unsecured car and mowes down a dozen people, I am, I suppose, guilty of all those murders besides my own? We live in a very, very sick society where everyone is guilty, except for the one committing the crime.
+1
for the idiot upstream of this comment who “owns guns” and feels that gun owners should be held liable if somebody commit a crime with them if they were unsecured, will you say the same thing about kitchen knives, cars? cans of gasoline? Give me a break!
The problem is, you may “own guns” but you see guns as tools to kill things, not as just tools. Based on that, all the hammers you own are designed to smash skulls, axes are there to chop limbs of enemies, and knives are there to stab people.
In 2012 someone sued another parent for the death of their daughter due to food allergy death. The parents of the girl who died, dropped off the girl at the party and did not inform the parents who where having the party that the daughter had food allergies. They where sued even though they had no idea the girl was allergic. No idea how the case ended up, but people will sue for anything. We have a culture of getting revenge or getting even although the person being sued is not at fault.
Back in 2004 there as an accident here in CT where a police officer was speeding without lights and was actually racing his buddy. A car pulled out and the crashed ended up killing two kids in the car. A boy who was 18 and his girlfriend who was 17. The state settled and it was a multimillion award. The parents of the girl then sued parents of the boy driving the car although every evidence was that it was not his fault. The boys parents lost that case.
There will be a time were the internet is the only way we communicate because it is the safest from being sued because any other type of physical interaction may result in someone being sued.
Let’s not forget that insurance companies can sue without your consent and will if they think they can recoup money. Alot of times the policy holder has no say whatsoever.
All examples why if you ever come into a substantial sum of money you need a trust.
Maybe not an ambulance chaser….herse chaser??
There was a story a while back, that tallied the laws A.L. broke…a couple of them came by the time he killed him mother.
While I agree his mother made some mistakes, she paid with her life too. Its tougher to get someone committed long term than just dropping them off at the pound.
“Winning ” this case sets a dangerous precedent….just because this crime was committed with a gun someone wants to justify going after survivors….like the brother and dad.
You are correct, that is why I said I hope this goes no where.
Fellow TTAGers please Read my posts above for my full explanations before making accusations of me using crack…
Well, if they should sue any party at all, this is the one.
Symbolic my a$$
This is potential backdoor gun control. If he happens to win, which is very likely since CT is a deep blue state with corrupt judges and huge “gimme mo free stuff” jury pool, then CT gun owners are screwed and lawyers in other states will try the same. if he wins, insurance rates will go up or policies simply cancelled for gun owners.
I have no idea how you insure for criminal acts, but I am sure there are plenty of anti-gun liberal judges willing to do leaps of gymnastic linguistics to make it happen.
If looses, he still wins because he will probably get Bloomberg money, anti-gun groups speaking engagements and the ability to hob-nob with anti-gun politicians.
It will be interesting to see if the insurance industry caves or fights. And if they fight, if the anti-gun groups call the insurance companies murders or child haters.
Even if the higher courts eventually overturn a lower court decision, the damage will have been done because it will take years to settle. There will be no hope in the CT legislature for stopping this BS considering they have tried a few times already to force liability insurance on gun owners.
I am not a lawyer, but IMHO opinion, from what I have read at other attempts at other states, it should go nowhere. The insurance company may also choose to just rollover and settle. Who knows, whatever the case, this is purely stupid and the intent is not symbolic.
For a group of people who take every moment on TV to say they want to be left alone, they seem to have no problems going into the spotlight and disturbing the lives of others.
The sad truth is that no matter what they believe they are trying accomplish, at some future date some mentally ill crazed person will cause another tragedy. But, hey, we live in a world of “if it feels good, do it” and have a well funded media driving victimization culture that will continue to prop-up this kind of BS for all it is worth.
” if he wins, insurance rates will go up or policies simply cancelled for gun owners.”
Isn’t it already illegal for an insurance company to cancel or tack on a surcharge due to gun ownership?
Well, I’m sure glad I have never owned any gunz!
Didn’t his mother have her firearms secured?
IIRC he killed her and then took a couple of days to break into her stash of arms and ammo. I am not sure how or where he obtained the .22 that he used to murder his mother as she slept.
You will have to read the case. He had access to the safe. He took out a 22lr and shot her several times, and then left to go to the school. He did take days to break in.
The issue is the same, how do you insure against someone creating a criminal act?
Hey, many towns/cities and insurance companies force you to have a rider on the policy if you have dangerous dogs in the house, should we now require parents with mentally ill children to have special insurance just in case their child goes crazy and kills a few people? How far do we take this?
The people probably most culpable are the doctors, school administrators and teachers (some of whom may have died that day) who knew about Adam Lanza first hand — why are they not suing them? or State Dept of Education? This is all pure BS.
The key to the case will be how he got access to the .22. Although the rest will be argues, it is pretty much legally irrelevant, since there is no duty to secure firearms in an impenetrable safe. Most laws only require trigger locks, and her it would seem (I am guessing) that she had some kind of stack-on metal and lockable abinet, which should be sufficient in the eyes of the law. Assuming of course that this goes to trial an issue that will depend in very large measure on the size of the homeowner’s policy. If, for example, it is $100,000, then the company has every incentive to pony up, since it will cost far more to defend the case through trial. On the other hand, it is plaintiffs who have no incentive to settle, because trial gives them the pulpit that they want.
And they wonder why everyone thinks lawyers are slimy.
Wow. I hope her home owners group sends a team of attorneys to slap this guy around the courtroom.
What I find most galling is the demolition of a perfectly fine house, ultimately, at the taxpayer’s expense, under the guise of “healing the community”. The house should be fixed up and sold, to someone who’s not squeamish or superstitious, and put back on the tax rolls.
I think the township wanted any reminder of what happened destroyed, like they did to the school.
There are sickos who would sell a map to the location of a heinous crime. The people in that town would always call the house ‘The Adam Lanza Mass Murder House’ or whatnot.
Sweep it away, under the rug of an upstanding Connecticut town.
*barf*
What happened to all the moneY from the almost 100 charities that were set up right after?
Because some of that money went to the town and not the parents, many of the parents cried, wailed and stomped their feet that it was not enough and it was not fair because all the money belonged to them.
I’m sure that a lot of it went into the pocket of the guys who set up the charity, just minutes before they left town and changed their names. As usual. Anybody who contributes to such “charities” is an idiot.
This case and the Bushmaster case seem to have Bloomberg money pushing this lawyer. The prospects of a win in either case are slim, but, if there is a favorable decision for them in one of the cases the impact on gun rights as we know them will be huge.
If they find a way to make Bushmaster pay for damages for the criminal use of their product, all gun makers would have to price their products accordingly(i.e. expensive). On the slim chance they get the murdered homeowners liability insurance to pay for the actions of her adult son, our insurance rates will either go up or gun liability would be written out of all policies.
For Bloomberg, this keeps Sandy Hook still in the news and is possibly a more effective outlay of cash than Moms Getting no Action on Guns.
I wouldn’t worry about your rates overly, for the simple reason that HO carriers pay out their limits on individual policies many times a year, and it doesn’t affect your rates. Carriers spread the risk over many policies, always have. The only time there is an issue is with the first party coverages when there is a large calamity, like a Cat 5 hurricane or a massive fire like the Oakland fire that burned 5000 houses.
Isn’t there already a federal law exempting gun manufactures from that kind of thing?
And insurance companies from dropping or jacking up premiums on gun owners?
The wrongful-death and negligence lawsuit says the rifle should not have been sold for civilian use because of its overwhelming firepower.
The case against her estate/insurance is one thing, but the quote above?
I’m suing Freightliner Truck Division because they are too big and powerful against a Prius.
Shakespeare was right.
I’m sure some lawyer has contemplated that against Ford/GM/Dodge for the pickup trucks.
Econazis often blame pickup trucks for small car crash fatalities despite the fact that in single car crashes, death is more than 3x time higher than even mid size cars.
You really should read the Shakespeare quote in the entire context. The character in question was suggesting revolution and anarchy, and this was something that Shakespeare was most certainly NOT promoting. Shakespeare was instead suggesting that lawyers were largely responsible for a civil society–and to overthrow that society, the first thing would be to kill all the lawyers/law makers. The quote is often made, out of context, because people love hatin’ on lawyers.
Yeah, but it is GREAT for that!
The lawyers are trying to squeeze blood from a rock going after the estate.
The lawyers will take most of any extorted settlement that won’t be any higher than the liability insurance max. Any numbers published on other assets? Bank probably owns the house.
Lawyers won’t get anything from the manufacturers or retailers.
The city owned the house and they voted to demolish it. The lawyer wanted to do a last minute insurance grab (homeowner’s insurance) before everyone forgets the events and all the sympathy.
More Lanza crap. It’s like a turd that won’t flush.
Nancy and Adam are dead. They are trying to punish who for this? If they aren’t trying to seek justice here, then they are using the opportunity to grab some money because that is the kind of people they are. Character reflection. We know what you are.
Adam Lanza was not a “third party.” So good luck with your money grab.
They should also sue “Cuisinart” anytime someone is killed with a kitchen knife too. Also – Cuisinart kitchenware is also overwhelming long, sharp, and dangerous in my opinion. Need regulation + lawsuits.
My favorite quote from a commenter from the source:
“Overwhelming firepower”? Have they heard of the AR-10?
These people wish more tragedies had happened to other people. Absolutely disgusting.
It is a terrible and unfortunate truth but still a truth – sometimes bad stuff happens and there is no one left afterwards to punish. It sounds like a good reason to carry a gun… and for school teachers to carry guns.
Also, if I get fat I am going to sue the company that made the spoon I ate too much ice cream with. They are enablers.
Now that I’m thinking about it, this is one of those “can’t get you in criminal court but they can get you in civil court” cases. I have yet to receive a logical explanation but how if you aren’t found liable in criminal court can you be found liable in civil court? I think if you aren’t guilty you shouldn’t have to pay. If Bushmaster isn’t part of some conspiracy to kill children then why would Bushmaster have to pay?
Criminal cases have a higher standard of proof than civil cases. Some of the civil and criminal laws overlap as to the conduct they cover, e.g. if I slap you I may have committed a criminal offense and also an intentional civil tort against you. The criminal offense has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it is, I could possibly go to jail. Even if I am just fined, if I don’t pay the fine I could wind up in jail. The civil tort only has to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence–and the applicable rules of evidence are different. If it is proven, I could be told I have to pay you some money, but I won’t face the possibility of going to jail, even if I don’t pay. The state would lose a criminal case if they only has a preponderance of evidence, but a civil plaintiff could win with that same preponderance of evidence. That’s why a criminal acquittal does not preclude a civil suit.
And this is why OJ was (properly) found not guilty in the murder trial, but held liable for millions of dollars in damages to the estate of the guy he (allegedly) killed. In the civil case, the plaintiffs only had to show that it was more likely than not that OJ did the dirty dead. But “probably did it” versus did it “beyond a reasonable doubt” are two very different things.
That sounds crazy. No judgement should be ruled on “probably.”
Look see here: It looks like they may have done it… they probably did! Probably!
A lawyer wouldn’t be taking this case if the family or families didn’t consent to it. So I’m sorry that makes whoever is behind this greedy pigs. Frankly neither lawsuit is going anywhere, he committed a crime by stealing the weapons, whether they were locked up or lying on a table, it’s the same crime. Homeowners isn’t going to cover that.
The home owner’s policy would likely deny coverage for Adam’s crimes; but that is not the case. Instead the issue is whether his mother was negligent in storing her firearms–which is clearly a covered loss.
Maybe not “clearly”
How is Adam Lanza, the son of the homeowner covered by insurance policy and likely covered himself, and a current resident of the home in question … a “third party.”
Some of the actually practicing lawyers here might correct me, but doesn’t an intentional tort by a third party usually break the chain of causation, insurance-liability-wise? What is the concept I’m after here, guys or gals?
Superseding cause. And although often the case, sometimes negligence can be a concurrent independent cause, i.e., the negligence of one defendant combined with the intentional misconduct of another defendant was the cause of a loss. For example, bars have been held liable for failing to provide sufficient lighting in an adjacent parking area when the bar knew or should have known that the parking area was the location of frequent criminal misconduct, e.g., fights, muggings, etc. visited upon bar patrons. Here it will be argued that mom’s negligence allowed him access to the firearms he used to commit his crimes. A similar principle is reflected in California’s law that holds a parent liable for the negligent storage of a firearm in some circumstances where a minor access the firearm and causes injury to himself or others.
Aha, I think that’s it. I’m guessing then that the burden would be to show that mom knew or should have known that Adam would do someone in with the guns if he could get to them? And did not take reasonable preventive steps in light of that actual or constructive knowledge? At any rate, thanks for the info.
Shakespeare Quote – “The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers”
All:
God save your majesty!
Cade:
I thank you, good people—there shall be no money; all
shall eat and drink on my score, and I will apparel them all in one
livery, that they may agree like brothers,
and worship me their lord.
Dick:
The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.
Cade:
Nay, that I mean to do.
Henry VI, Part 2 Act 4, Scene 2
’nuff said.
The only hitch is that Cade and Dick are the bad guys of the play, no? And they want to kill all the lawyers so they can impose their bad scheme on the people more easily. Making the lawyers, by inference, good guys. Context, as they say. Thanks for putting up the whole quote, BTW.
My question is, if he had a heart condition, how could he be putting the boots to his old lady well enough for his “services” to be worth $4 million? It doesn’t add up.
That’s some pretty fancy lawyerin’.
(Edit: this was supposed to be a response to “Resident CT” above. Not sure why it got stuck here.)
At the risk of pissing off the locals, this makes some sense.
Yeah, she’d a right to own a bunch of guns and no, there weren’t laws in place in her locale mandating secure storage.
However, leaving that stuff unsecured when she was terrified of her kid and planning to put him away was unconscionably stupid.
If I leave my keys in my car, I’m partially liable for the actions of the plonker who steals it. Same thing.
She should’ve had a cary piece, with the rest locked up. Otherwise, there are issues of reckless whatchamacallit.
I don’t care about pissing off the locals. This is a garbage suit…
“If I leave my keys in my car, I’m partially liable for the actions of the plonker who steals it.”
No, you aren’t liable in the least. The plonker who steals it is responsible for his own actions.
People like you are part of the problem. The people responsible for crimes are the people who commit crimes. Period. Blaming victims for the actions of criminals is stupid, counterproductive, and tends to undermine justice and law enforcement.
If you leave your keys in your car, the only way you might be responsible for someone else’s use of it (IMHO) is if that person owns an identical car and normally leaves the keys in it. Otherwise, that person is knowingly and deliberately stealing your car, no responsibility is yours.
If the law says different, then the law is wrong.
This is how we lose our freedom. The greed of the ordinary person who does not believe in personal responsibility.
If there is justice in this world, then people like Attorney Josh Koskoff will surely burn in hell for eternity.
Comments are closed.