Sandy Hook victims to share $1.5 mn from shooter's mother's estate

[onehandle]

Source: AFP

New York (AFP) - Families of the victims of the Sandy Hook school massacre three years ago have been awarded $1.5 million in damages from the estate of the shooter's mother, their lawyers' office said Wednesday.

Twenty children and six educators were killed when Adam Lanza went on a deadly rampage at the elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, 2012.

US media reported that eight separate lawsuits, involving 16 plaintiffs, were filed seeking compensation from the estate of Nancy Lanza, who was fatally shot by her son Adam moments before the massacre.

Lanza went on to commit suicide.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/sandy-hook-victims-share-1-5-mn-shooters-235815370.html

---

Inevitably, all of gun culture will have to pay for gun violence.

[restorefreedom]

1. won't bring the kids back

but it will help with counseling, memorial tribute projects, etc.

how interesting that the mother had so much $$ in her estate and yet could not get the proper help for her deranged kid.

[SunSeeker]

7. She did get him help. He had therapy.

But she obviated all that by also buying him guns and taking him to shooting ranges.

[restorefreedom]

10. he did? wonder what the therapist would have said about the guns

i'll go out on a limb and say he or she would not have recommended it

[secondwind]

17. The mother cried out for help for years... but they didn't do anything ... we have a big

problem with our mental health system..

[restorefreedom]

18. not to pile on the dead woman

but if she was crying for help, did she really think encouraging his gun use was going to help??

and i agree, the mental health system needs a big redo. she may not have made good decisions, but the system failed her, him, and all the dead kids.

[Nay]

26. Frankly, she had enough money to get him any kind of psych help

he needed. Maybe the shrinks were incompetent or something, but she sure as hell didn't need to take that boy to shooting ranges, ffs. The very least she could have done would have been to keep him away from dangerous objects. I suspect that her husband divorced her and her other son saw them only rarely because it had become obvious that Adam was an accident waiting to happen.

I see in another post that she was going to institutionalize Adam and he found out about it, thus the rampage. Why she had those guns lying around, knowing that he was this dangerous, is a mystery for the ages.

[jmowreader]

22. I once read what set him off...

...was when he discovered that his mom was about to have him institutionalized to keep him from killing anyone. Which doesn't explain why a woman who knew her son was enough of a threat he had to be kept in a facility for the protection of society wouldn't have found somewhere else to keep the arsenal she owned until he was removed to the facility.

[restorefreedom]

25. exactly. sometimes i think the gun people don't think

"it can happen to them." guns are from protection from those OTHERS.

[itcfish]

60. I remember reading that she

Was an "end of the world" nut and that when Obama won, she feared the African Americans were going to take over the United States. Don't know how true that was.

[Lurks Often]

61. That's incorrect

His mother was considering moving to somewhere on the West Coast where there was a facility that would help him with his AUTISM, dealing with the autism was overwhelming her as he essentially needed 24/7 care. There is no credible information that he was never diagnosed as mentally ill.

Personally I think some of the mental health professionals may have thought he was dangerous but never said anything.

[RandySF]

87. Her idea of therapy was to stockpile weapons.

[restorefreedom]

101. yup. sounds like a lousy treatment modality....oh yeah...its nuts!!

i feel a bit sorry that her stupidity and, stubbornness cost her her life. feel a LOT sorry thst it killed all those people ag the school.

[rug]

2. How is the mother's estate liable? He killed her too.

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. Probably due to the negligent manner in which she made firearms available to her

mentally ill and dangerous son.

[rug]

11. Ok, that would make sense.

I haven't been following who's suing who.

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. I believe it is the people who had their small children murdered by a mentally ill

person with a completely negligent gun owner parent suing the estate of the completely negligent gun owner.

[rug]

14. Let me gess - for negligence?

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. I would think so

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

19. Didn't he kill her first? Estate then went to him.

If I remember correctly, anyway.

Order of death is important in situations like this.

[rug]

20. He wouldn't take because his inheritance was the result of his crime.

I bet her estate is the subject of a separate suit, as noted above, for negligence.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

21. True. Forgot about that!

nt

[Manifestor_of_Light]

27. Unclean hands doctrine.

When the unclean hands doctrine applies, as in the commission of a crime, the estate passes as if the person committing the murders predeceased the person he killed, and his estate could not inherit his mother's estate.

I haven't forgotten everything I learned in law school decades ago, just most of it!!

[catrose]

85. There was another son, older than Adam

I hope he got something, because he's going to have one or two therapy bills too.

[trillion]

38. what the heck. She should be liable even in causing her own death.

[mgmaggiemg]

3. would be great if gun owners paid the cost

for gun violence that's a lot of money....all society pays and no amount of money reverses the tragedy that guns right nuts cause and continue to cause

[GGJohn]

5. Why should I, as a firearm owner,

pay for the costs related to the criminal or negligent misuse of someone else's firearms?

That's just ludicrous.

[bigwillq]

16. This.

[treestar]

23. It's the price of your freedom to own guns

Those kids were a sacrifice to our freedom to own guns. These things are going to happen, we accept them, and it's not a big deal for us to compensate people. Sort of like we have benefits for survivors of soldiers who gave their lives for our freedom.

Though Lanza's was incredibly negligent not to keep them away from him.

This is an editorial with the point:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/12/02/voices-our-apathy-gun-violence-staggering/76682894/

[trillion]

32. not so sure. If a kid is going to die by firearms, you do deserve it to be yours before anyone

who doesn't want firearms around has it happen to theirs. If only Karma would work that way. Sort of like drunks should kill their own families and not other's. If we could only keep the bad crap to the people who perpetuate it or demand dangerous weapons be around for their personal fetish and damn others. And, I believe you should be taxed because as a whole, gunowners are the ones demanding unfettered use of any weapon as well as, as few checks as possible about who gets them, thus causing all the dead kids.

[GGJohn]

33. My child deserves to die because I own firearms?

What kind of sick think is this?
I hope this gets alerted on and hidden for the sickness of this thinking.

[trillion]

34. Your child doesn't deserve to die at all.

I'm just saying before my kid dies, it should be yours for having that crap around. If a kid is going to die by firearms, I think it should stick to being the gunowners kids. The great injustice here is that non gunowner kids are dying by gunowner crap. And that's why you should be taxed. your group is causing this on the rest of us.

[GGJohn]

35. So, again, my child should die because I own firearms?

Thanks for clearing that up.

[trillion]

36. So again, your child does NOT deserve to die.

No child deserves to die. What part of this don't you understand.
I'm saying that if a kid dies by fire arms, it should be a gun owners child and not a child from the non gunowners. Why should we have to put up with your groups messes?

[GGJohn]

37. Dude, that is some fucked up thinking.

I truly hope nobody ever says your child should die first because.........................
Welcome to my first ever ignore list.

[trillion]

39. EXCUSE ME, why should NON gun owners kids have to die by guns?

It makes a lot more sense that if kids are going to die by guns, it should be gun owners kids.
You guys are the ones introducing the guns. I don't believe even your kids deserve to die. Just saying, if someone is going to lose their kids, it should be you gunowners and not me and the rest of the people who want guns out or your groups irresponsible hands. you guys are causing the dead kids. It should be yours and not the non-gunowners kids who die. Why would you ever want it so people who don't want guns around should share in the child murders your group is causing?

[forthemiddle]

42. So lets hope that the Sandyhook

Parents were gun owners, because after all, that would be much more just!

[trillion]

43. 1. It's not fair to any child.

2. Its not fair to any parent.
3. It's really really really not fair to parents who don't want guns out there. As opposed to say, parents who think that kids dying are just a cost of their freedom to have a fire arm.
4. Half the parents likely didn't want guns around and lost their kids because the other half of parents did want guns around. It's so unbelievably MORE unfair to those parents that didn't want guns around. And those parents that did want guns supported the great gun lobby by buying guns from the companies financing the lobby. They are the reason we keep having these shootings. Easy access to guns for all. No real restrictions. No required gun safes, mental health checks, etc. It's harder to get a drivers license than any of the guns that killed these kids.

[trillion]

44. and by the way, are you another gun owner who thinks people who don't have guns deserve to equally

share in the deaths of kids, with the people demanding guns and causing this?

[LanternWaste]

62. I interpret things in such a way as to maintain the pretense of offense, too.

I interpret things which do not validate my bias in such a way as to maintain the pretense of offense, too. Black and white thinking is very convenient for us, as is our consciously inaccurate inference of what others plainly say...

[djg21]

64. Negligent Parental Supervision

generally is not a viable cause of action, because parents are considered free to determine how best to raise their children. This rule applies UNLESS the parent entrusts the child with an inherently dangerous instrumentality such as a firearm.

[mgmaggiemg]

67. by supporting the 25,000 clustrfk of gun laws....

that allow all the violence....that's how. I am (and many other voters as well) voting out all the politicians who bend over for the NRA causing all this gun violence....yes you are responsible. because you support this violence.

[GGJohn]

72. yes you are responsible. because you support this violence.

Nope, I am not responsible, nor do I support the violence.

I am not responsible for what others do with their firearms and your assertion that I support this violence? You can place that statement in a deep dark hole, I'll leave that for your imagination.

[anigbrowl]

86. Why should I, being childless, pay for the education of others' kids?

Why should I, being healthy, pay for anyone else's medical costs?

Why should I, being a tough guy, pay for the costs of running a police department I have no intention of ever calling?


Etc. etc. etc. There's such a thing as collective social responsibility as well as individual social responsibility. You wish to enjoy using firearms and I am fine with that, but in the aggregate firearm usage involves significant social costs, so it's not unreasonable that some of that cost should fall on you.

[GGJohn]

89. Fine, then every citizen pays, not just firearm owners. eom.

[jberryhill]

100. Why do I, as a car owner, pay for other people's crashes?

[onehandle]

6. We pay 229 billion a year because of gun violence to prop up a 12 billion dollar a year industry.

It's ludicrous that gun nuts don't understand that this just one of the many reasons that their days of freedumb are numbered.

[pablo_marmol]

9. Great stuff OH!

It's ludicrous that gun nuts don't understand that this just one of the many reasons that their days of freedumb are numbered.

[GGJohn]

13. It"s Freedom, not Freedumb.

Don't schools teach spelling any more?

It's ludicrous that gun nuts don't understand that this just one of the many reasons that their days of freedumb are numbered.

You just keep believing that, but history shows otherwise.

[trillion]

46. I think freedumb fits when it's unfettered access to a dangerous weapon.

Since we don't do mental health checks, it's pretty unfettered.

[trillion]

45. Good stat!

[mgmaggiemg]

69. completely agree....

vote out politicians that bend over for the NRA

[GGJohn]

76. Yeah, good luck with that in the rural areas of the country.

[pablo_marmol]

8. The OP basically demonstrates that a negligent mother was at fault for Sandy Hook........

.........and you want gun owners to pick up her tab?

LOL ---- no thanks. But thanks for demonstrating why the Controller Contingent is flailing and failing.

[treestar]

24. But it's not the victim's fault

They were shot as a result of our freedom to own guns and of course it follows people are going to end up being negligent. With that kid's history, I could not believe she let him have access to guns. Looks like she paid the price too for her own negligence.

[trillion]

31. Agreed. And every time I mention out loud that I would prefer it were only the gunowners kids that

get killed by guns, and not the kids of people who don't want guns accessible to everyone, people get made at me and act like I've said something wrong. I do think the people who believe these kid's death are a cost of our freedom really deserve to have it happen to their own before it happens to someone else's child. Of course I'm liable to start mocking gun advocates when their kids die and tell them things like, they're making it up and it's all a big hoax and "stuff happens," Because I also think they should be subjected to the utterly insane bullying they pull on others.

[treestar]

47. True and they should also admit they are willing to die

in such an incident themselves. It's been argued that it is rare, you are more likely to be killed other ways, but inherent in that is that it is acceptable - don't worry about it, it is not likely to be you. Just some other strangers who don't matter.

[Lizzie Poppet]

50. That happens because you DID say something wrong.

That you don't recognize that is frankly astonishing.

Of course I'm liable to start mocking gun advocates when their kids die

Bet you wouldn't do it to their face, would you? That's a benchmark you should consider adopting: if you're contemplating saying something that you'd never say to someone's face (because you know you'd get your teeth smashed down your throat), you probably shouldn't say it at all.

[trillion]

52. Hey, have you read the posts and the attacks on these sandy hook parents because the gunnuts want to

believe their kids deaths is a farce to take their guns away? That's what I'm referring to. Would i mock one of these people including Jeb Bush if his child got shot? Yes, I would likely post "stuff happens" if Jeb Bush's child was shot because that is what he said in response to the Oregon Community College mass shooting. I don't believe he would deserve any other response.

Your violence about "you'd get your teeth smashed down your throat" indicates the type of person you are. Figures. Bet you own guns too... I think the Muslim shooters did one good thing they didn't intend- they made people mad that social media wasn't checked. Hopefully we can get that fixed and prevent more deaths in the future.

[Lizzie Poppet]

54. So? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Your violence about "you'd get your teeth smashed down your throat" indicates the type of person you are.

Read with adequate care, please. I never said I'd do any such thing. I'm a 5'3", 111lb female...I'm not smashing anyone's teeth down their throat. I've never been in a fight beyond a minor grade school playground tussle in my life. My rather obvious point was that saying something like that to a grieving, emotionally-devastated parent is quite likely to elicit a violent reaction. I suspect you're fully aware of this and wouldn't actually say shit like that in a million years.

[trillion]

41. Why shouldn't the gun owners pick up the tab? The gun owners are financially supporting the groups

lobbying congress to not have sane gun regulation with every gun you guys buy. That does work into causing the deaths of kids.

[mgmaggiemg]

70. FIRE THE GOP, SINK THE NRA, GUN CONTROL IS COMING

COMING TO THE USA (sung to the tune of leonard cohen)

[GGJohn]

78. Uh huh, been hearing that same tune for over 20 years now.

[mgmaggiemg]

80. you will be buying the beer on election night

[GGJohn]

81. Uh huh.

[trillion]

94. I would suspect it's more like the situation of buy more guns after the next mass shooting.

That seems to be how these people work.

[trillion]

30. Agreed. In Seattle we have a tax on every bullet now and it goes to victims of violen crimes.

[ManiacJoe]

57. None of the money goes to the victims. That was never part of the plan.

[mgmaggiemg]

68. we need to run the bill that allowed

victims to sue gun manufacturers through congress once HRC is prez...it will pass...

[ManiacJoe]

71. Victims have always been able to sue gun manufacturers.

They just have to sue for something that is that fault of the manufacturers.

[mgmaggiemg]

73. actually the bill that was blocked

was for illegal use of their products....again FIRE THE GOP, SINK THE NRA, GUN CONTROL IS COMING, COMING TO THE USA (to the tune of leonard cohen)

[ManiacJoe]

74. That would be an excellent bill to block.

The illegal use of a product is never the fault of the manufacturer, whether the product is a gun or any other thing.

Why would you sue Ford when a Mustang is used as a getaway car in a bank robbery?!?!?!???

[mgmaggiemg]

75. face it joe

gun control is coming

[ManiacJoe]

77. I am a big fan of the two-handed grip.

[mgmaggiemg]

82. not surprised

you can't get a woman to join you

[GGJohn]

83. Ooooh, an insult.

How original.

[ManiacJoe]

92. Not surprised that is the best you have.

[trillion]

96. You're actually afraid because you know what mgmaggiemg says is true.

The rofl's are mocking and bullying tactics but the agenda is crystal clear. You are anti gun control. And you are a minority now. The the gun control is coming.

[ManiacJoe]

104. You keep telling yourself that....

[GGJohn]

79. .....

Here's a smily for you.

[trillion]

99. +10000

[trillion]

95. I don't believe Hillary would do it. I've been following her since the mid nineties. In congress

she repeatedly went against the left. She gives good lip service and will say anything to get elected but I already witnessed her track record. What do you think of her darling the TPP?

[mgmaggiemg]

102. trillion

if you do your homework and you have been following bernie since the 70's and 80's you will know that while he was opposing US in Central and South America ...a position I agree with he was refusing to shut down a gun manufacturing plant that his voting constituency opposed ...that would be the people who voted for him...who opposed the manufacturing plant...so Bernie has been pro gun from way back ....because vermont is pro-gun...since Clinton has been on the board of Walmart they have closed the gun sections in about a third of their stores...including this year and more to come....so she is walking the talk thank=you ...but agree coming from ARK another very pro gun state...actually because of the NRA there are 25,000 gun laws...a clusterfk and dems are the only ones who tried to pass a bill allowing victims to sue gun manufacturers....GOP candidates have all been pictured at the gun dealers tables holding guns of all types...it's time to stop the lawmakers bending over for the NRA by voting them out....Cheers, and Happy New Year, Maggie

[trillion]

103. I know all about Bernie and Guns, and I know a whole lost about Hillary and the war maching and the

TPP.

[Lizzie Poppet]

49. "Collective guilt" is an ethically indefensible concept. (nm)

[trillion]

51. Yes, actually it is.

What isn't defensible is the gunnut excuse that kids being killed is just the price of their freedom to own guns. As it stands everyone who buys a gun now-a-days is literally putting money into the gun lobby through the gun manufacturers. All gun buyers are collectively preventing us from going to mandatory mental health checks because they are financially supporting the gun lobby. And these kids deaths, and so many more actually are on their hands. We could legislate out a whole lot of killing, but we have the gun owners funding the gun companies funding the gun lobby to blame for not being able to.

We need Mandatory mental health checks, gun safes, and responsibility laws when the gun is used in a crime or accidental shooting. We need a database that cross checks all records we have on people and the will to not allow a gun sale unless that check is done. We would have them but the gun owners are funding the campaign against that. ALL gun owners are unless they bought their gun over 20 years ago.

[Lizzie Poppet]

53. I concur on that assertion, for sure.

What isn't defensible is the gunnut excuse that kids being killed is just the price of their freedom to own guns.

I detest that argument on several levels. Not, mind you, that I hear it made very often...but when it is, I just shake my head.

With the exception of mental health checks (more on the below), I support the same additional regulations you listed. I would like to see a demonstration of competence (safe gun handling and a reasonable demonstration of basic accuracy), a mandate for secure storage, I'm open to the idea of a one-time "permit to purchase" along with the usual per-gun instant background check, universal background checks (for which I played a modest role in enacting here in Oregon), and a big crackdown on straw purchases.

While I think mental health screenings would be a fine thing, I don't think the staggering expense (hundreds of billions) needed to institute such a system is justified by the comparatively small number of gun crimes committed by people diagnosed with mental illness. Not that the victims of those crimes aren't important, but such a massive expenditure could be far better used elsewhere, where it could have a much larger impact. We don't have the mental healthcare infrastructure to support this (that's a big issue in and of itself).

[mgmaggiemg]

66. collective guilt not ethically indefensible....

[ManiacJoe]

28. For those who know how these suits work,

would it be safe to say that the suits were filed quickly after the attack to make sure the estate was not quickly distributed to the heirs?

[msanthrope]

29. No. nt

[ManiacJoe]

55. OK, what preserves the estate after all this time?

[Humanist_Activist]

65. Probably no will, my grandma's estate was in probate for 2 years to distribute it equally among...

6 heirs.

[WhoIsNumberNone]

40. Chump change

$1.5M
-30% (Lawyers' fees)
=
$1.05M
/26 victims
=
$40,284.62 each.

You can't even get a kid to school age for $40K.

Just a little talking point for when Ayn Coulter starts whining about how the families cashed in at by victimizing some hapless rich person. The only people who cleaned up here were the lawyers (as usual)

[trillion]

48. Mean while, Christmas morning a 2 yr old was shot in the face by her uncle cleaning his gun

The uncle isn't bein charged.
http://q13fox.com/2015/12/25/family-member-cleaning-gun-accidentally-shoots-2-year-old-in-oregon/

That family must be so proud of their guns.

[ManiacJoe]

56. If you believe the "cleaning" part....

[goldent]

58. Reminds me of how the Israeli government

destroys the family homes of terrorists.

[trillion]

97. what does? Suing the estate of a mother who is at fault for the death of many by providing

weapons to her known insane kid? Looks like the court found her guilty.

[itcfish]

59. NRA should be shelling out some

Money to the families of the victims

[GGJohn]

63. Why? eom.

[trillion]

98. There's this thing called the big picture. The NRA is responsible for lobbying for the lack of

mental health checks, the lack of laws against having guns in a home with the mentally ill, and the lack of requiring gun safes - especially for the kind of weapons and the amount of weapons a person has lying around. Ultimately it is the lack of gun legislation that allowed this to happen and that is on the NRA's hands. But you know, it's also blood on their supporters hands, since they buy the guns that finance the gun lobby and they give voter support. Heck, their supporters show up all over internet doing the work of the gun lobby.

[RandySF]

84. And the manufacturer

But the assassins lobby made sure that guns are the only protected industry in the country.

[GGJohn]

88. Protected from what?

Protected from being sued for the criminal or negligent misuse of their legal product?
Name one other industry that can be sued for the third party criminal of negligent misuse of their legal product?

You are aware that firearm manufacturers can still be sued under certain circumstances?

Here, read and learn.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/7903

There are 6 exceptions under which the firearms industry can be sued.

[anigbrowl]

90. No other industry has this protection that I'm aware of

Of course manufacturers should generally not be responsible for the criminal or negligent misuse of their legal product, but most industries are content to argue their lack of liability in court rather than seeking explicit legislative protection for it. Of course, while all industries like to advertise the virtues of their products, most of them do so based on features and include safety information where relevant. On the other hand, some gun manufacturers run ad campaigns like this:



One day, adverts like this are going to shown next to ones claiming that 'more doctors smoke camels' and suchlike as examples of corporate arrogance that eventually led to huge industry payouts and stringent regulation.

[GGJohn]

91. The airliner industry has the same protection as the firearm industry,

the purpose of the PLCAA was because the Brady Org and some big city anti gun mayors got together and thought they could sue the firearms industry into bankruptcy using SLAPP suits, they didn't particularly care if they won, they figured that with so many lawsuits for the industry to defend, it would drive them into the poor house, what they didn't count on was the Congress taking action to prevent that from happening.

You can bet that if the same thing happened with the auto industry, then they would receive the same protections.

[anigbrowl]

93. It has some similar immunities...

...but ISTM that's mainly immunity from state lawsuits, justified by the interstate commerce nature of air travel.

It's interesting that you mention the auto industry as a parallel. I wish gun ownership/operation were subject to even a fraction of the regulation that the auto industry puts up with.