4 ms·
Does this ruling actually set enough legal precedent for someone to, for example, successfully press charges against Smith & Wesson for assisting a murder facil
by cosmojg 2y ago
Does this ruling actually set enough legal precedent for someone to, for example, successfully press charges against Smith & Wesson for assisting a murder facilitated by a weapon they manufactured and distributed? Or are the legal implications of this ruling a bit more limited/complicated than that?
- incompatible 2y agoI'm not sure about Smith & Wesson specifically, but this seems similar: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-29/gun-maker-offers-33m-to-settle-suit-by-sandy-hook-families/100332512 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-29/gun-maker-offers-33m-... I'd guess it comes down to whether a somebody can claim that the intended uses of their product are legal, and that they aren't encouraging illegal uses in any way.
- imoverclocked 2y agoAnother interesting stretch would be holding governments responsible for knowingly allowing illegal activity with their own currency; Especially if that currency is used outside of their borders.
- badlucklottery 2y agoFrom what I understand, they weren't being charged for created a "dangerous" technology but for actively running a money laundering operation that happened to use that technology. Some of the chat logs that were obtained seem particularly damning. So it's less like S&W legally selling guns that are later used in crimes and more like a low-level buyer in the Iron Pipeline (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Pipeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Pipeline).