In September, Breitbart News reported that the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence joined with Sandy and Lonnie Phillips in suing Lucky Gunner and other firearm-related stores for selling ammunition and other supplies to alleged Aurora theater gunman, James Holmes.

Holmes allegedly opened fire on movies-goers watching The Dark Knight Rises on July 20, 2012.

In late March, Senior District Judge Richard Matsch threw out the suit and held that Lucky Gunner and the others “are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs.”

- See more at: http://gunsnfreedom.com/suit-by-auroras-...P2TyZ.dpuf

This is a wholly misleading title Fitbud, the parents brought suit in a civil case and lost. The death of their child doesn't grant them immunity to paying for the legal fees of the opposing party if the case was frivolous, which it sounds like it was.

Please stop making patently misleading thread titles like this.

(05-22-2015 09:20 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  This is a wholly misleading title Fitbud, the parents brought suit in a civil case and lost. The death of their child doesn't grant them immunity to paying for the legal fees of the opposing party if the case was frivolous, which it sounds like it was.

Please stop making patently misleading thread titles like this.

The original title was too long so I tried to shorten it.

Please provide a better title and I will gladly change it.

Good, this is how frivolous lawsuits should be handled.

Misleading title is misleading.

(05-22-2015 09:51 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  Good, this is how frivolous lawsuits should be handled.

Misleading title is misleading.

Misleading how?

Fit, stop. It's clearly misleading.

(05-22-2015 09:42 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 09:20 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  This is a wholly misleading title Fitbud, the parents brought suit in a civil case and lost. The death of their child doesn't grant them immunity to paying for the legal fees of the opposing party if the case was frivolous, which it sounds like it was.

Please stop making patently misleading thread titles like this.

The original title was too long so I tried to shorten it.

Please provide a better title and I will gladly change it.

Shooting Victims File Frivolous Lawsuit -- Must Repay $250k Court Fees

(05-22-2015 09:52 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 09:51 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  Good, this is how frivolous lawsuits should be handled.

Misleading title is misleading.

Misleading how?

Not surprising given how you have an interesting way of defining words in a dictionary.


The title alone is meant to elicit sympathy to the victim's parents, thus skewing it into their favor immediately. After reading the article, you discover that is not the case.

The owners of the gun store are the victims in this story, they are the ones that people will sympathize with.

repost

Notice the liberal pointing out the misleading title? Can some of you conservatives start doing the same? It'd help around here.

(05-22-2015 09:59 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Notice the liberal pointing out the misleading title? Can some of you conservatives start doing the same? It'd help around here.

I've got no problem with that, although I fail to see the politics in this article.

I hope this wasn't an exercise set up by you and Fit.

Should the parents try and sue the shooter's car manufacturer for providing reliable transportation to the theater?

(05-22-2015 10:09 AM)ummechengr Wrote:  Should the parents try and sue the shooter's car manufacturer for providing reliable transportation to the theater?

absolutely. And they should sue the manufacturer of the body armor.

It was a frivolous case, sure, but let's not take too much pleasure over the thought of a grieving parent lashing out irrationally.

(05-22-2015 10:14 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  It was a frivolous case, sure, but let's not take too much pleasure over the thought of a grieving parent lashing out irrationally.

No doubt. I would probably find any reason to lash, but our actions have consequences. Grief/anger are no excuse.

(05-22-2015 10:16 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 10:14 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  It was a frivolous case, sure, but let's not take too much pleasure over the thought of a grieving parent lashing out irrationally.

No doubt. I would probably find any reason to lash, but our actions have consequences. Grief/anger are no excuse.

I agree with that, and that legally speaking this sort of outside influence should not matter to the decision of the court. But, socially speaking, I think we could do better than a lot of the responses I've seen in this thread.

I hope nothing but the best for each family who lost a loved one in that tragic shooting, and I don't begrudge them for their actions even if I disagree with it.

(05-22-2015 09:53 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Fit, stop. It's clearly misleading.

If it's clearly misleading then explain how it is misleading.

(05-22-2015 10:14 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  It was a frivolous case, sure, but let's not take too much pleasure over the thought of a grieving parent lashing out irrationally.

No pleasure at all. Nothing but tragedy and heartache over the whole thing.

It is good to see a few judges making some good calls out there though.

Because it isn't stating that they are paying for a frivolous case they tried to bring to court. It's just saying they have to pay 250K.

(05-22-2015 09:58 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 09:52 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 09:51 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  Good, this is how frivolous lawsuits should be handled.

Misleading title is misleading.

Misleading how?

Not surprising given how you have an interesting way of defining words in a dictionary.


The title alone is meant to elicit sympathy to the victim's parents, thus skewing it into their favor immediately. After reading the article, you discover that is not the case.

The owners of the gun store are the victims in this story, they are the ones that people will sympathize with.

Re posting explanation