Lawsuit results from opinions posted on gun boards

[Harvster]

One facet of my defense would be to go online and pull 20 or so disparaging things from other people about the company (you can find at least that many negative things about any company) and ask if those people are also being sued or whether my client is being singled out. That's just the way the internet works, forums full of folks opining as facts and knocking companies that they don't like. I think Lorcin may have grounds for some good lawsuits.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Federal law generally dictates that, in addition to proving that the comments made were false, an aggrieved party also must prove that actual malice was intended on the part of the originator of the message. Malice, of course, is a difficult thing to verify, unless there is some sort of smoking gun left behind: emails or letters, phone calls that were taped or otherwise recorded, witnesses who could testify to statements made that the intention of the poster, in this case, was to do the silencer company harm by recklessly telling lies. The article makes no reference to the malice aspect of a suit, so it will be interesting to see what standards are applied when and if the case proceeds to trial in an Oregon courtroom.

Malice - or reckless disregard for the truth. In other words, if the speaker (or writer) could have known, should have known, or could easily have found out that what he (/she) said/wrote was false, they can still be zapped for defamation.

 

[CBS220]

A quick perusal of the ARFCOM legal section shows that this stems mainly from Ian's contention that AAC lost its contract with FN.

Whether that is true or not remains to be seen, or at least it was still remaining to be seen last I checked up on this.

 

[jrfoxx]

I think AAC will have a hard time showing proof they lost any money over this, or that he did it maliciously, or that he should have reasonanbly known what he said was not true. I suspect he will win this pretty easily, if not get the suit outright dismissed.stranger things have happened though.

 

[skywarp_]

If and when I do go this route I wont get an AAC based on their actions. They should sue themselves for lost income.

 

[DragonFire]

One facet of my defense would be to go online and pull 20 or so disparaging things from other people about the company

Just make sure the dates of those posts are before your post, otherwise you could be proving the case for them.

Actually, I think in this case your best defense would be to wait until the plaintiff's prove their case before you introduced anything new. Unless you could show that you were just passing on something you heard previously on the forum, and were expressing that fact, I'm not sure showing other people put down the company really affects the case.

 

[buzz_knox]

Out of all the people with access to my computer, which one of us posted this?

End of lawsuit.

In a civil suit, you have to answer the questions posed to you in a deposition or trial. So, unless you are planning on perjury, you'll establish that element.

As for getting to that point, let's say you file a motion for summary judgment on the issue of identifying the post as yours. They respond that the account is yours, the pattern of writing is yours, etc. Unless you can show that someone else used your account (keeping in mind that perjury applies to affidavits as well), a judge will find there is a disputed material issue of fact.

 

[Frizzman]

Well, if their product's reputation cannot stand up to criticism, what ever it might be, I don't want any of it! I have read very nasty comments about almost all brands and types of firearms. I don't just go by what some might say on the internet. Anyone who brings the lawyers in like that wouldn't get my business...

 

[KingTiger]

I own two of AAC's suppressors and will buy more, they make outstanding products. This is old news if you have a clue in the suppressor world.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

This lawsuit is not going anywhere for the same reason defamation suits never go anywhere- truth is an absolute defense.

Ian will be able to demand all sorts of otherwise confidential business information from the company to assist him in proving the case i.e. suppressor designs, and a list of all contacts the company has with SOCOM. There is no way the company discloses this so the suit goes away.

 

[buzz_knox]

This lawsuit is not going anywhere for the same reason defamation suits never go anywhere- truth is an absolute defense.

Ian will be able to demand all sorts of otherwise confidential business information from the company to assist him in proving the case i.e. suppressor designs, and a list of all contacts the company has with SOCOM. There is no way the company discloses this so the suit goes away.

Actually, the business can disclose it pursuant to a confidentiality agreement in which the parties agree (and the court orders) that no information be disclosed outside the requirements of the case, and the court can bar any public disclosure even as it relates to the case. This happens quite often where proprietary or personal information is at issue.

And while truth generally is a defense, if information is so damaging that releasing it shocks the conscience of the court or if disclosure violates some other agreement, saying "it's true" won't help you one bit. This is likely not applicable here, as the speaker was probably just repeating what he'd heard on the net, but it's worth remembering. The 1st Amendment isn't as absolute as people think.

 

[ilbob]

Who knows what the real scoop is.

Could be a SLAPP type action, could be legit. Based on the comments from posters in this thread there are both AA haters and AA fans out there.

The core issue seems to be if they have or have not lost a contract. that ought to be fairly easy to show one way or the other.

 

[XD_fan]

For the truly curious here is a link to the second thread on Arfcom. The first thread is sourced in the first post.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=710063

 

[pappy]

Quote:
In a civil suit, you have to answer the questions posed to you in a deposition or trial. So, unless you are planning on perjury, you'll establish that element.

Why couldn't plead the 5th?

 

[TexasSkyhawk]

Malice - or reckless disregard for the truth. In other words, if the speaker (or writer) could have known, should have known, or could easily have found out that what he (/she) said/wrote was false, they can still be zapped for defamation.

Not exactly. Close. . .

If Mas Ayoob had posted what this Ian guy did, then Mas could be looking at some liablity based upon his credentials and reputation as an established source of information, plus his credentials to back it up.

If I posted what this Ian guy did, it could get interesting but I could easily prove my involvement with anything "socom" has been decades past since my discharge from the military. However, because of my past credentials, it could get sticky for me. Doubtful though, since my credentials are freaking ancient (we didn't even have fax machines when I was in--dating myself a bit here).

However, if some SEAL who just got out of the service was stating what this Ian guy said, then it changes--even moreso if this SEAL has/had any command rank. Same would go for a recent retiree of the FBI's HRT or US Marshals SOG teams.

If this Ian guy is nothing more than a fan of suppressors and black guns, but has not published anything, been socom military or swat LE or anything else that would establish him as a "take it to the bank" source, he should be off the hook.

Otherwise, NO ONE will ever be entitled to their opinion ever again--it will be open season on EVERYONE who has an opinion or who misstates facts, etc.

I don't see that happening.

Rephrase that. . . I HOPE I don't see that happening. Who can tell with judges and the squirrelly-ass juries we get these days.

Jeff

 

[hankdatank1362]

 

[ilbob]

Why couldn't plead the 5th?

The 5th amendment right not to incriminate one's self only applies to criminal cases. read it. it is there in black and white.

 

[.cheese.]

wow. I won't be buying from AAC now. The internet is full of misinformation. That's all we need is to waste court time with somebody suing over it.

Give me a break. AAC needs to grow a pair.

 

[feedthehogs]

Good for AAC.

Its one thing to have a product, that product fail and then get no help from them and be able to post specifics.

Its another to get a mad on against someone and be a child and proceed to rant every chance you get over nothing.

All you have to do is look at the posters here who will not buy(like they ever were) a suppressor from AAC because of this but having no experience with their products.

Based on my ownership of AAC products and friends of mine who have AAC products, the only problems I saw were individuals who used crappy reloads or crappy factory ammo that damaged the suppressor and then expected the company to replace it for no cost.

There are way too many "I heard" posts that contain no factual information at all.

 

[rdhood]

This is the internet. Go ahead and pick nearly *any* product on the face of the earth, and you will find people who adore it and people who abhor it. So much so, that I don't believe any single posting I read anywhere. I form opinions from a consensus of postings. One single post or one single poster cannot seriously damage the reputation of any manufacturer. AAC is going to lose this one.

That said, it is important to understand that, when complaining about a company or product, to tell the truth and do not embellish. The truth should speak for itself.

Good: "I purchased product A and utterly failed my expectations because of XXXX, and I spoke with a respresentitive and they said XXX. I am not satisfied, and urge others to beware."

Bad: "Product A is a piece of doo doo, and the company are a bunch of doo doo heads. I had a problem and they <embellishes/lies about communiction with said company exchange>".

The second response may well be libelous, but who (really) is persuaded by a single anonymous poster in an internet forum? The damages will be impossible to quantify and show causality to the poster. AAC will lose this.

 

[Tyris]

Not to sidetrack this thread, but GemTech produces one of the most consistently crappy suppressor lines money can buy. Their pistol cans are among the loudest available, and their rifle cans cost significantly more than comparable models from other companies.

I'll side track some more. You forgot to mention the G5 223 rifle can held together by roll pins.

The early versions of which had an actual HOLE in the blast chamber allowing high pressure gas to vent to the atmosphere. The hole was clearly visible in night shots.

-T

 

[brighamr]

Anyone who actually cares or who wants to know more about this... do some searches on ARF.

I wont comment about facts, but in less than two minutes of reading AAC comments at ARF, i decided not to become a customer.

 

[.cheese.]

All you have to do is look at the posters here who will not buy(like they ever were) a suppressor from AAC because of this but having no experience with their products.

What makes you think that we weren't going to ever buy a suppressor from AAC before this? Plenty of us do buy NFA items. I actually am planning to purchase a suppressor any day now.

Product quality is only one facet of what makes a product attractive to many of us. Plenty of us don't buy HK products because of the company's attitude. What makes this case any different?

 

[skywarp_]

I wont comment about facts, but in less than two minutes of reading AAC comments at ARF, i decided not to become a customer

Yeah that cemented it for me as well. Eww.

Im planning a few purchases myself before the climate gets cold towards goodies. AAC will not be one of them after browsing ARFCOM.

 

[Acera]

Ok, now AAC is on the list of places I will not purchase from (I like my Gemtechs just fine)

That list seems to be getting longer by the day.........










(AAC lawyers, please do not try to use me to show lost revenue.)