FN303 Law suit????

[rkjunior303]

Who also was FACING the police officer in order to get hit directly in the eye. Doesn't look like she was trying to get away from anything

That is a comment that isn't based on fact. If you know the area where this happened, the street is a T. In order to leave, you have to walk up to the cross street (Brookline Ave) then take a right/left. She could have been walking up Landsdowne St. to leave and just been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Pacifist_Farmer]

I doubt the gun manufacturer will be held responsible for the training of the officers who used their product. Unless there was a specific training course, etc. which the officers attended. When you bought your paintball gun wasn't there an information package included which explained the proper way to use the marker (did you read it)? Doesn't the user assume all culpability in these instances?

I disagree with the "blame the maker" mentality except in situations where it can be shown that the manufacturer was negligent with the users safety, or intended the product to altered or distributed in an unsafe manner.

It can all be compared to Big Tobacco, and their lawsuits. Who's responsible anymore?

[SlartyBartFast]

I disagree with the "blame the maker" mentality except in situations where it can be shown that the manufacturer was negligent with the users safety, or intended the product to altered or distributed in an unsafe manner.

Which is why this lawsuit is justified and necessary.

If FN can prove it's training and documentation are adequate, they will avoid all responsibility.

Any portion of responsibility that they can be accountable for, such as their training requirements not being sufficient, derroneous documentation, or a trainer that misstated the possible danger of the weapons will result in them being penalised for their percentage of responsibility and hopefully the training or documentation changed as necessary.

[Muzikman]

I'm not defending the lawsuit. However, on the subject of a life not being worth a specific amount of money... If I were to die my family would loose a significant amount of income. Enough that they would not be able to continue in the same life style as we do now (not that it's all that great, but...). My life insurance is only a years salary. How much money would I earn before I died at my life expectancy? THAT is the minimum amount... Additionally, the assistance I provide in the care and feeding of the children is also worth something (what would it cost to hire someone to do it FULL time). Then there is the upkeep of the house. Again, what would it cost to hire someone to so all that. Then there is the upkeep of the wife, what would it cost... You get the idea.

Point taken, but that is what life insurance is for. have the wife take out a 3 million policy on you and all if fine...until she needs new shoes and you end up in a ditch along the side of the road :)

Personally I am not a fan of insurance either.

[SlartyBartFast]

Personally I am not a fan of insurance either.

You should be insured enough so that the survivors aren't worse off than currently until they can regain their footing.

You should be insured to cover expenses and debts that the survivor would not be able to cover.

But, you need to evalute the need, not turn it into a lottery.

It's different with lawsuits about responsibility though. Insurance is your legacy to your heirs ensuring they can survive at least the short term (you may want tem to be able to survive long term as if you were still alive). Court imposed penalties however have a duty to ensure that your heirs are provided for as if you were alive and earning for a normal lifetime.

That's only fair. It's what they took away, it's what they owe back.

But if there are no dependants, I think the payment should be for court costs and any penalty be only to ensure the event doesn't happen again.

[Muzikman]

You should be insured enough so that the survivors aren't worse off than currently until they can regain their footing.

You should be insured to cover expenses and debts that the survivor would not be able to cover.

But, you need to evalute the need, not turn it into a lottery.

It's different with lawsuits about responsibility though. Insurance is your legacy to your heirs ensuring they can survive at least the short term (you may want tem to be able to survive long term as if you were still alive). Court imposed penalties however have a duty to ensure that your heirs are provided for as if you were alive and earning for a normal lifetime.

That's only fair. It's what they took away, it's what they owe back.

But if there are no dependants, I think the payment should be for court costs and any penalty be only to ensure the event doesn't happen again.

[ottomobile]

If the parents need to sue anyone, sue the rioters. Its their fault the police showed up. Its their fault we need police. Its their fault police need weapons in the first place. Don't blame law enforcement and certainly don't blame the company trying to support the cops. People aren't perfect and machines break-down. It happens. But ultimately if anyone bears responsibility it the rioters and the girl that died. They shouldn't have been breaking the law.

[hitech]

The lawsuit...charges that FN Herstal USA falsely claimed its pellets don't break the skin.

If they falsely claimed (lied) that the "pellets" would not break the skin then they are guilty...

[Lohman446]

If they falsely claimed (lied) that the "pellets" would not break the skin then they are guilty...

If they did you are right. And anyone who beleived them after test firing one of those things and handling the ammo is an idiot.

[Steelrat]

"Skin" isnt the same as "eye." Remember, they don't call these weapons "non-leathal," they call them "less-lethal," and there is a very good reason for that.

To me, it sounds like the officer ignored one of the cardinal rules of firearms safety, which is to know your target, backstop, and beyond. From what I've seen, the FN303 is not an area affect weapon, and is in fact a direct fire weapon intended to be used against individual targets, unlike a tear gas grenade, which is intended to be lobbed into a crowd. So, either the officer intentionally fired at a person, knowing that there were other people behind his target that he may or may not have wanted to hit, or the officer was randomly shooting off into a crowd hoping for a hit. Either scenario is bad.

What also disturbs me is Boston jumping on the bandwagon to sue the manufacturer, and getting a "piece of the pie." I'm sure the Boston PD knew full well what would happen if someone was hit in the eye with one of the FN303 rounds. Its up to the PD to teach their people how to engage targets.

[ottomobile]

Yeah and remember, paintballs don't break the skin either. But we all know what happens if one of those suckers hits you in the eye! Adios Muchacho! Thats why we wear googles on the field.

Imagine if someone sued RPS because they were playing without a mask.