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.

 

Ah great... Lawsuit planned against theater in Batman shooting

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Forgive me if this was posted, I searched but did not find... Or just flame me for lacking search prowess... Take your pick.

It looks like somebody is going to sue the theater and any other person or organization with any association to the movie or Holmes.

Report: Shooting survivor plans to sue theater

A young man who survived Friday's shootings in an Aurora, Colorado movie theater is planning to file suit against Cinemark, TMZ reported Tuesday.

Torrence Brown, Jr. was also close friends with one of the 12 people killed in the attack, 18-year-old A.J. Boik. Neither of Brown's parents would confirm the planned lawsuits Tuesday afternoon, referring Yahoo News to Brown's lawyer, who didn't return requests for comment.

Attorney Don Karpel told TMZ that the suit will allege that the Century 16 theater, which is owned by Cinemark, was negligent for not having the exit door guarded or equipped with an alarm that would sound when it opened. (Holmes reportedly left the theater via the exit door, propped it open, and reentered with his weapons.) The suit also targets Warner Brothers, blaming their movie's violence for inspiring Holmes. Also named in the suit: suspect James Holmes' doctors, if they exist, for hypothetically not monitoring his hypothetical mental condition adequately.


It isn't enough to have survived such an ordeal?! I get it... What happened, it sucked. But this isn't going to make anything any better. This perpetual victimhood really gets under my skin.




posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by xenthuin
Also named in the suit: suspect James Holmes' doctors, if they exist, for hypothetically not monitoring his hypothetical mental condition adequately.



If one can sue people that only hypothetically exist, for doing (or not) hypothetical things, they should name God in the lawsuit as well.

Its only fair.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Here we go with the frivolous lawsuits, for one your client went to the violent movie lmaoooo and you want to sue because of its violence. They are just going for any money they can get. Like the movie theater can protect from something like this. This will open the door for tighter security, now I cant even go to the movie theater without a movie security agent fiddling my twig and berries. Awesome!

I feel for the victims but this is not the answer. Its a tragedy but not one that could have been prevented by the theater. Even if the door alarm went off for a moment who was equipped to stop this guy?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Yes- I find this a bit offensive too, but, on the other hand, a civil case will likely produce more of an investigation into the details of the shooting that might otherwise be suppressed, so perhaps we'll all find out more as a result of this.

Worth keeping an eye on this one.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Lawsuit 'eh?

Didn't take long...


edit on 24-7-2012 by LadySkadi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Capitalize on the tragic deaths of others.
Disgusting.

Not meant to be a minimalist post but just prefer to not say anymore as its not very nice.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   
They should sued for not allowing guns in there so people could protect themselves from criminals. Criminals often use places of darkness to hide their crimes, so it should have been obvious something would happen sooner or later...



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Whats with all the hate for this guy? He's just survived an attack the likes of which most of you will never experience in your lives and lost a friend to that whacko.

Do you guys think people should just accept that some lunatic can shoot up a cinema without any comeback?

I'd like to know this crazy got into the cinema armed to the teeth in the first place if weapons are outlawed on the premises. If the corporation owning the cinema isn't enforcing its rules and the law then it should be sued until it complies.

I'm not a fan of the sueing culture in the US, but there is actually a reason why it is pretty easy to start legal process.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by freethinker123
 


Lets get something straight fire escapes are mandated by law in all public places. The door was opened from within. Fire exits may not be blocked and are not required by law to be not locked from the exit side.

Unless a law is passed that all public places should have alarms on their doors and armed security within their facilities. The cinema has done no wrongdoing. This is a tradgety that could not have been circumvented by an alarm on a door. There would have been nothing to stop an entry from the front. Lets not forget the cinema owners are also victims here.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by xenthuin
 


I'm sure there will be more to follow. This is just the start.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3n19m470
They should sued for not allowing guns in there so people could protect themselves from criminals. Criminals often use places of darkness to hide their crimes, so it should have been obvious something would happen sooner or later...


I very much second this notion. I'm not a big gun person myself, and don't know Colorado's laws (don't need to cause I don't live there...), but 3n19m470 is partially right. Maybe if just one or two people, who were CC licensed, were carrying, this might have all turned out differently. Do I know that? Know. I don't. But we'll never know, will we...



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 



Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by xenthuin
Also named in the suit: suspect James Holmes' doctors, if they exist, for hypothetically not monitoring his hypothetical mental condition adequately.



If one can sue people that only hypothetically exist, for doing (or not) hypothetical things, they should name God in the lawsuit as well.

Its only fair.


No doubt!

I, sadly, wouldn't be surprised to see Dolby, THX, and/or any of the sound system manufacturers being dragged into this or a similar lawsuit for "replicating gunfire so realistically that it was indistinguishable from actual gunfire".



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shirak
reply to post by freethinker123
 


Lets get something straight fire escapes are mandated by law in all public places. The door was opened from within. Fire exits may not be blocked and are not required by law to be not locked from the exit side.

Unless a law is passed that all public places should have alarms on their doors and armed security within their facilities. The cinema has done no wrongdoing. This is a tradgety that could not have been circumvented by an alarm on a door. There would have been nothing to stop an entry from the front. Lets not forget the cinema owners are also victims here.


True, and I also believe that a person in that state of mind will find a way to accomplish their end result. If not there, maybe some where else. It was inevitable unfortunately.

My thoughts and prayers are with the victims but also with the cinema owners.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
you have to remember..EVERYONE must pay, and pay, and pay
doesnt matter whose fault it is
EVERYONE must pay!!
its the "me" mentality



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by xenthuin
 


I have no problem with them suing. Not everything lawsuit is about money or trying to cash in. They may not be asking for anything but accountability and change in policy. I mean, seriously. Why didn't the alarm go off in the back ? We don't have the details, just that there may be a lawsuit. The mans friend died and he himself was traumatized and maybe injured with medical bills.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by xenthuin
 


Why are you surprised?

This is the culture.

Corporations make all of the money off of someone's idea. Then they patent, then they sue.

Divorce is a big law suit.

Civil crimes are sue fest for restitution.

The legal system is an extension of the capital religion in America.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by edaced4

Originally posted by 3n19m470
They should sued for not allowing guns in there so people could protect themselves from criminals. Criminals often use places of darkness to hide their crimes, so it should have been obvious something would happen sooner or later...


I very much second this notion. I'm not a big gun person myself, and don't know Colorado's laws (don't need to cause I don't live there...), but 3n19m470 is partially right. Maybe if just one or two people, who were CC licensed, were carrying, this might have all turned out differently. Do I know that? Know. I don't. But we'll never know, will we...


If I'm not mistaken, which I could be, so some one correct me, but I thought I read that Colorado does have a CC license but the cinema does not allow weapons in the theater. Seem like I remember a few people complaining that the sign was posted low at knee level & one person was even escorted out at one time because of the gun.

I'll see if I can find that article to back up what I just said......



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by snarky412
 




but the cinema does not allow weapons in the theater


I heard something along these lines as well

ETA found this link: City of Aurora police would have arrested anyone who stopped the Batman massacre with a concealed weapon.

I have no idea of credibility of this site...never heard of it before

edit on 24-7-2012 by edaced4 because: (no reason given)


ETA another link: Survey of Colorado's Local Firearms Ordinances

hhhhmmmmmmmm...seems that I saw a post here on ATS within the last couple of days regarding inmates on Colorado's death row, and all their crimes had been committed in Aurora...koinkydink??? Didn't read it...yet
edit on 24-7-2012 by edaced4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by skepticconwatcher
 


I understand your points... For medical and/or therapeutic costs there is already money flowing into various funds from donors and Warner Bros. The one and only cause for this tragedy is the shooter himself... As others point out, no reasonable measures could have prevented this from occurring.

What about the intent to also sue Warner Bros. for creating such a violent movie that would trigger someone to do this? Again as others have pointed out, this person was AT the movie that contains this violence and therefore supports the display of such violence in movies.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
only in



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join