It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Aurora Shooting Survivors Owe Theater $700K for Litigation Bills

page: 2
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 09:39 AM
link   
We have criminals suing home owners for injuring themselves after breaking into their home... and winning. And these people can't get anywhere in the legal system?? They must have terrible lawyers.




posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: imsoconfused
a reply to: FamCore

They should have settled. The judge basically begged them to settle. He knew what would happen if they didn't.

Honestly I dont think its the theaters fault some crazy guy decided to go on a shooting spree.


The argument usually isn't that it's the theater's fault that some whackjob shot up the place and killed people, it's that the scene that they set by making it a no-gun zone (which obviously works out well with murder-intent criminals) stops law-abiding people--who are often well trained with their firearms--from being able to protect themselves, their families, and the others around.

I agree with the judge's ruling, but I think that Cinemark is participating in some pretty severe jackassery by countersuing the people who went through this terrifying event in the first place--one that may have been avoided had they been supplementing their desire to disarm citizens by providing adequate security.

They should have settled, but I applaud them for taking them to court in the first place over this type of scenario, as it's ever apparent as the years go by that businesses, corporations, and governments (all the same thing, really) are more concerned with the appearance of safety than actual safety for its citizens and patrons.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   


Basically some of the survivors filed a federal law suit hoping that it would require theaters to increase safety measures to prevent things like this from happening in the future



What this should read, is that the survivors filed a lawsuit, hoping the federal government will further erode our constitutional rights to "make us safer".

They should have to pay ever penny back.
edit on 1-9-2016 by iTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   
They should have sued the theater for being a gun free zone. The Shooter skipped over bigger and closer theaters, to hit the gun free theater.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: thinline

Agreed.

Although when I go to the theater, that little sticker on the door doesn't stop me; no one has been injured because of it, either.

Sad thing is, though, if I ever found myself in the unlikely scenario where I had to use my weapon in self-defense and stopped something, I'd probably go to jail for having ignored the sticker on the door.

But keep in mind--it's a legal thing for a business to declare themselves a gun-free zone. I would think that the victims would have to sue the state if they were going after the gun-free-zone issue.
edit on 1-9-2016 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Sad thing is, though, if I ever found myself in the unlikely scenario where I had to use my weapon in self-defense and stopped something, I'd probably go to jail for having ignored the sticker on the door.


I do not think you can be hit with criminal charges by ignoring a private business's no firearms policy.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It depends on the state. I've lived in TN and currently live in KY, and the laws are written in such a way that you cannot be arrested for ignoring the sticker, but if asked to leave or to go put the firearm in your vehicle and you refuse, you can be arrested for criminal trespassing at that point.

I wonder if they would try and slap a trespassing charge or something, in the hypothetical I mentioned.

Regardless, we both know that charges need not be something that would stick in order to be initially charged. In any event, I'm sure that I would have a legal headache--to what extend, I have no idea.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: incoserv




The little guy gets screwed again


I said that in the sense that it these individuals (4 people) are now required to pay $700,000, versus large corporations and entities that are often NOT held accountable for things they've done. It's much easier to stick John and Jane Doe with a huge bill or fines, but corporations have an in with the laws (due to lobbyists and sellout legislators) and often get away with things with impunity.

I agree that these people should have settled or not sued in the first place, it's not "poor them", just an observation regarding civilians versus business entities and the workings of our justice system



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I wonder if they would try and slap a trespassing charge or something, in the hypothetical I mentioned.

Regardless, we both know that charges need not be something that would stick in order to be initially charged. In any event, I'm sure that I would have a legal headache--to what extend, I have no idea.


I think they would have a hard time with trespassing unless you were verbally warned prior to that.

I do get where you are coming from but I would think it would be tough to bring an actual charge on someone like yourself for ignoring these stickers.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




I do not think you can be hit with criminal charges by ignoring a private business's no firearms policy.


Perhaps unless you go into one of the Federal Reserve buildings with your gun, since they have so much influence they could find a way to prosecute you for it? Just a fantastical thought I had when I read your comment



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   
(1) Even the police can't protect people from random acts of violence... a movie theater certainly isn't up to the task.

(2) As far as the no-gun policy, if you don't like a businesse's policies then simply don't do business there.

(3) Just because bad things happen, it doesn't mean you're automatically owed a large sum of money.

(4) Being born is not a guarantee for survival, it's simply a shot in the dark (or at least that's how it started out)



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Frivolous lawsuits are a pain in the ass of the legal system. You can be walking down the street and pick up a quarter and someone looks at you and walks in front of a car. You could be sued for distracting them. You would not lose, but the cost of defending yourself could bankrupt you.

The Theatre was not required to look for someone with a gun, it is a public place. No place is required by law to provide security from nuts with guns. Even if they have a checkpoint, it is not going to stop someone from sneaking in sometimes.

Many states now have laws to protect people and businesses from frivolous lawsuits. But remember, sometimes it is cheaper for an insurance company to settle than to continue fighting these things so it has got out of hand. How would you like to get sued because your kid kicked a ball in the yard and it flew onto the sidewalk and someone chasing pokeman go tripped over it.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: WeRpeons

Walk away from what exactly? Them being dragged to court?



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   
The victim's families should have sued the CIA and the MK-Ultra False Flag program instead. At least it would have brought it out into the open.

There's no way that Colorado shooter was 'just crazy' given his background and involvement in high level brain entrainment studies. The journalists were screaming it from the rooftops back then; he wasn't an extremely intelligent kid who suddenly went 'round the bend, he was either drugged, hypnotized or both. Wasn't it obvious from his first court appearance and his behavior at the scene? Sitting down in his car and waiting for the cops to come, and warning them that he had boobytrapped his apartment? And his father being involved in that whole LIBOR scandal thing that barely made a blip in the news at the time?



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Nobody has mentioned the anti-gun groups that incited them to sue in the first place. They provided the lawyers and when the lawsuits were thrown out, they left these people hanging.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: SentientCentenarian

SALK Institute, DARPA, odd experiments. I'd say... all of it just gets brushed under the rug. What a pity



posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 06:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi

Place of business bans customers from carrying guns.
Place of business provides no security measures for people who aren't allowed guns.
Place of business then doesn't stop bad guy from bringing in gun.
Bad guy shoots everyone in place of business.

I'd say the business is at LEAST partially responsible.


No the business bears no responsibility for this. It is long past time that common sense start playing a role among our citizens. This was a money grab on the part of the victims and their families pure and simple. And while what happened here was tragic, it is part of the cost of living in a free society. To be free by its very essence demands that we accept that bad things can and will happen and that the only ones you can hold responsible for them are those that perpetrated the act in question.

Having to go through a security checkpoint and pat down to see a movie is a ridiculous notion. In the last hundred years how many millions have attended a show with no incident? But we should change how we do things because a handful of people got hurt by a man with some issues? This is how criminals and terrorists work to change the world to their vision, the politics of fear.



posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   
The problem that I have with this is the sheer numbers that this corporation managed to rack up in legal fees in the first place.

How on Earth are you spending 700,000.00 on 4 suits and acting like you deserve every penny back for the overpriced lawyers you hired.

I wonder how many of them are conveniently related to management members.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join