Lawyers representing the families of victims killed in the May 14th Tops shooting are arguing in wrongful death lawsuit that the manufacturer of a weapon accessory used in the mass shooting made false statements regarding their product.
Attorneys for the manufacturer, MEAN LLC, argued in State Supreme Court Thursday to have the wrongful death lawsuit dismissed.
Attorney Kristen Elmore-Garcia, representing the families of the victims said the accessory in question, a lock accessory for a magazine for a semi-automatic rifle, can be removed from the weapon and replaced with magazine that exceeds more than 10 rounds making it illegal in New York State. Instructions on how to remove the lock from a weapon is written on lock’s packaging.
A semi-automatic weapon was used in the Tops shooting.
Following court proceedings Thursday, Elmore-Garcia said there is plenty of evidence that supports the lawsuit moving forward.
“What we allege is that their advertising was deceptive and misleading because their product doesn't actually convert an illegal assault weapon into a New York State compliant weapon,” she said. “We are alleging that their lock doesn't actually do anything and that their ads were meant to avoid that legal requirement.”
Friday, Elmore-Garcia will be back in court as social media platforms like Meta, Snapchat and 4Chan argue to have the wrongful death lawsuit dismissed as well.
Elmore-Garcia said the Tops shooter was radicalized through these platforms.
“Tomorrow, you'll hear a similar argument from the social media industry, many of the ones that we named in our Summons and Complaint have moved to dismiss. Those include Reddit, Discord, 4chan, Meta, and Alphabet,” she said. “They have immunity in their industry under another statute, for a lot of types of cases called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. And it’s amazing that these two industries, the social media industry and the gun industry, are able to hide behind or shield themselves behind the two major statutes. And they’re the only two industries that have these types of blanket protections.”
Elmore-Garcia added:
“But we are alleging cases against them for what we claim to be completely outside of, completely irrelevant from those two statutes protecting those industries.”
Lawyers for Snap, Inc, Snapchat’s parent company say they will address the media ahead of Friday morning’s hearing.
