Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Thursday, October 12, 2017
Route 91 Lawsuits Begin
Pollstar: At least three separate lawsuits were filed at press time in relation to the mass shooting that killed at least 58 and injured more than 200 at Route 91 Harvest in Las Vegas Oct. 1.
This is a tough one. On one hand, I fully believe there should be some reparations for those who were injured at the concert and to the families who lost loved ones at the concert, but on the other hand, there are some defendants listed who I do not believe are at fault. Honestly, there is one man at fault for this tragedy and he is dead. Mandalay Corp. really had no ability to stop this mass shooting unless they check everyone’s bags and search through everyone’s rooms, which is never going to happen. Live Nation is not at fault because short of creating a bullet proof dome around the concert, there is nothing they could do. Sure, the manufacturer of the bump stocks that were used could be a fairer defendant since they created the feature that allowed for the rapid release of bullets, but I don’t think that argument is strong. Why list the bump stock manufacturer and not the gun manufacturer, a bump stock is just a piece of plastic and steel without a gun attached. Why not list the bullet manufacturer? A gun is just an air cannon without bullets. I am not saying that we shouldn’t try to ban weapons and attachments that are only good for showering bullets over a large area, but I want these victims to get the most reparations as possible and I don’t see these suits listed parties in the article (other than against the shooter’s estate) as winnable cases.
Of these three cases the that I feel really has teeth and merit is that of the lawsuit against the bump stock company Slide Fire Solutions. The reason for this is that the only purpose of using a bumpstock is to try and get around laws that prohibit or limit the sales of automatic firearms. Yes it is currently legal due to it not being a permanent modification that changes the fire arm at its core. It does however as a mechanical attachment change the rate by which a semi automatic firearm can be fired and to a rate that while not fully to the level of most automatic firearms far greater than would be obtainable with out it. Don't get me wrong I enjoy shooting firearms but my problem is that this a product that sole purpose is to brush up to the side of fire arm restrictions an be as close as you can get to a automatic firearm without acquiring a special license and that to me is beyond sketchy.
I grew up with firearms all around me. I learned how to use them from an early age. At no point in time was it the responsibility of the gun manufacturer to teach me how to properly use a firearm, that was my father. Before deciding on grad school for theatre, I floated the idea for law school. I studied a lot of it in my undergrad time and even presented a few presentations on gun related cases. None of these lawsuits have merit unless they specifically single out the estate of the shooter. We don’t sure Chevy or Ford because the driver crashes the car into a crowd of people, We go after the driver. The courts have held in several instances that a gun manufacturer cannot be held liable for damages as a result of the use of its products. Part of the problem is that we have become a very litigious society. Slip and fall? Sue. Misuse a product and get injured? Sue. Neither MGM nor LiveNation can held liable for the actions of an individual who wasn’t even in the concert venue. The shooter was in a hotel room. He had an arsenal of weapons. Shall we allow every manufacture of every weapon, ammunition, bump stocks, and other modified weapon the he had to be sued for this? No, because none of that matters. It is the action of the individual. In this case, only the estate of the shooter can be sued. The courts will be right to dismiss cases against MGM, Live Nation or even Slide Fire Solutions. A manufacturer cannot control what an individual does with their product. Not knowing what annual sales are, I am sure that there are hundreds of individuals if not more who have purchased this item. So far, none of them became mass shooters, except 1. Let his estate suffer the result.
3 comments:
This is a tough one. On one hand, I fully believe there should be some reparations for those who were injured at the concert and to the families who lost loved ones at the concert, but on the other hand, there are some defendants listed who I do not believe are at fault. Honestly, there is one man at fault for this tragedy and he is dead. Mandalay Corp. really had no ability to stop this mass shooting unless they check everyone’s bags and search through everyone’s rooms, which is never going to happen. Live Nation is not at fault because short of creating a bullet proof dome around the concert, there is nothing they could do. Sure, the manufacturer of the bump stocks that were used could be a fairer defendant since they created the feature that allowed for the rapid release of bullets, but I don’t think that argument is strong. Why list the bump stock manufacturer and not the gun manufacturer, a bump stock is just a piece of plastic and steel without a gun attached. Why not list the bullet manufacturer? A gun is just an air cannon without bullets. I am not saying that we shouldn’t try to ban weapons and attachments that are only good for showering bullets over a large area, but I want these victims to get the most reparations as possible and I don’t see these suits listed parties in the article (other than against the shooter’s estate) as winnable cases.
Of these three cases the that I feel really has teeth and merit is that of the lawsuit against the bump stock company Slide Fire Solutions. The reason for this is that the only purpose of using a bumpstock is to try and get around laws that prohibit or limit the sales of automatic firearms. Yes it is currently legal due to it not being a permanent modification that changes the fire arm at its core. It does however as a mechanical attachment change the rate by which a semi automatic firearm can be fired and to a rate that while not fully to the level of most automatic firearms far greater than would be obtainable with out it. Don't get me wrong I enjoy shooting firearms but my problem is that this a product that sole purpose is to brush up to the side of fire arm restrictions an be as close as you can get to a automatic firearm without acquiring a special license and that to me is beyond sketchy.
I grew up with firearms all around me. I learned how to use them from an early age. At no point in time was it the responsibility of the gun manufacturer to teach me how to properly use a firearm, that was my father. Before deciding on grad school for theatre, I floated the idea for law school. I studied a lot of it in my undergrad time and even presented a few presentations on gun related cases. None of these lawsuits have merit unless they specifically single out the estate of the shooter. We don’t sure Chevy or Ford because the driver crashes the car into a crowd of people, We go after the driver. The courts have held in several instances that a gun manufacturer cannot be held liable for damages as a result of the use of its products. Part of the problem is that we have become a very litigious society. Slip and fall? Sue. Misuse a product and get injured? Sue. Neither MGM nor LiveNation can held liable for the actions of an individual who wasn’t even in the concert venue. The shooter was in a hotel room. He had an arsenal of weapons. Shall we allow every manufacture of every weapon, ammunition, bump stocks, and other modified weapon the he had to be sued for this? No, because none of that matters. It is the action of the individual. In this case, only the estate of the shooter can be sued. The courts will be right to dismiss cases against MGM, Live Nation or even Slide Fire Solutions. A manufacturer cannot control what an individual does with their product. Not knowing what annual sales are, I am sure that there are hundreds of individuals if not more who have purchased this item. So far, none of them became mass shooters, except 1. Let his estate suffer the result.
Post a Comment