Two years after the horrendous massacre of 19 students and two teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, the families are suing the corporations that fed the warped mind of the young man who perpetrated the murder. They hired the lawyer who successfully represented the Sandy Hook families and won a $73 million settlement for them.
SAN ANTONIO — The lawyer who won a record-setting settlement for Sandy Hook families announced two lawsuits Friday on behalf of Uvalde school shooting victims against the manufacturer of the AR-15-style weapon used in the attack, as well as the publisher of “Call of Duty” and the social media giant Meta.
The lawsuits against Daniel Defense, known for its high-end rifles; Activision, the manufacturer of first-person shooter game “Call of Duty”;” and Meta, the parent company of Facebook, may be the first of their kind to connect aggressive firearms marketing tactics on social media and gaming platforms to the actions of a mass shooter.
The complaints contend the three companies are responsible for “grooming” a generation of “socially vulnerable” young men radicalized to live out violent video game fantasies in the real world with easily accessible weapons of war.
The wrongful death suits were filed in Texas and California against Meta, Instagram’s parent company; Activision, the video game publisher; and Daniel Defense, a weapons company that manufactured the assault rifle used by the mass shooter in Uvalde. The filings came on the second anniversary of the shooting.
A press release sent on Friday by the law offices of Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder PC and Guerra LLP said the lawsuits show that, over the past 15 years, the three companies have partnered in a “scheme that preys upon insecure, adolescent boys…”
The first lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, accuses Meta’s Instagram of giving gun manufacturers “an unsupervised channel to speak directly to minors, in their homes, at school, even in the middle of the night,” with only token oversight.
The complaint also alleges that Activision’s popular warfare game Call of Duty “creates a vividly realistic and addicting theater of violence in which teenage boys learn to kill with frightening skill and ease,” using real-life weapons as models for the game’s firearms.
[Salvador] Ramos played Call of Duty – which features, among other weapons, an assault-style rifle manufactured by Daniel Defense, according to the lawsuit – and visited Instagram obsessively, where Daniel Defense often advertised.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The day DOJ charges SCOTUS as accessories before the fact is the day we truly begin to end the carnage. Until then, it’s all just treating the symptoms.
Call of Duty represents a problem in society. Not every person who plays the video game becomes a mass murderer. Fringe human beings become mass murderers, just like a fringe human being, Czolgscz, went after McKinley with the Iver-Johnson.
I want us to solve this problem with civility. Don’t call people baby killers, say that their policies have the effect of causing the death of children. Don’t create violent art forms just because they sell. Try not to offend, even if offense is not the proper response to what you are saying or doing. Be diplomatic.
“Fringe human beings become mass murderers,”That is a very scary thought, Roy, as who determines what are “fringe human beings”? To lump all people who are not quote ‘normal’ unquote as being able to be mass murderers is not right at all. Far too broad of a statement. Condemning those who are different from others as you do with that statement borders on “fringe” thinking. . . of the wrong kind.
Not seeing the issue, Duane. He is not claiming that all people with differences become mass murderers. But it is definitely the case that, BY DEFINITION, a person who becomes a mass murderer is a fringe person.
Can’t agree! He has plainly stated that “fringe human beings become mass murderers.” I don’t think that Roy means it the way it is, or at least, the way I have read it. But the vast majority, like 99.99% of “fringe human beings” never harm anyone, except maybe themselves (which is their right and personal choice) Who am I to dictate who is fringe or not? And no, not all mass murderers are “fringe human beings”. Some times people just snap, from the “normal” reasonable person into someone who sees no other option than to murder.
But first things first; Define “fringe person”.
If having committed mass murder does not make one “fringe,” then I don’t know what would. ROFL. If you’ve committed mass murder, by definition, you are not “normal”–representative of a statistical norm.
First things first; Define “fringe person”.
Duane: you are correct. My phrase did not adequately express what I wanted to say. Almost all mass murderers of strangers (a very tiny minority of murders) are struggling with problems sorting out reality. Their group of friends is generally small, sometimes distant. People find it hard to be around them for various reasons. Hence the “fringe” word I used above. It was not meant to demonize anyone? Rather to empathize and to suggest that we reach out to each other rather than cut each other off.
My first thought: Who is the lawyer?
Then I read who it was and grinned.
With that lawyer, it will be like going into combat against terrorists (the war monger corporations) with that lawyer like Special Ops troops and a flight of A-10 Warthogs for ground assault air cover protected by higher flying F-22 Raptors