It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:22 PM
reply to post by zroth

Originally posted by zroth
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.

I am not surprised... I know exactly the ways the legal system capitalizes on the tragedies in this country. I was merely pointing out my disdain for the fact that this happens every single time and that no one can just simply be grateful for their lives.

posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:28 PM

Originally posted by edaced4
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)

Yeah, I saw that too....

I can't locate the original piece I read but here's another:

Manager: Excuse me guys but firearms are not allowed in here, you’ll have to put them in your vehicle.

My friend: Really when did that happen, I’ve carried here many times with no problem, well we’d like to see your policy on that please!

Manager: Okay come with me

We followed the manager up to the ticket counter and he showed us this small cardboard sign that said “NO FIREARMS ALLOWED” at the very bottom. We told the manager that we wished to receive a full refund and we would not be returning to the theater in the future. He said nothing, and we were given our refunds with no further problems . . . We ended up going to a shopping mall that has a theater inside and we were able to see our movie without being asked to leav

Evidently the only people allowed in there with guns are law enforcement officials.

Check this out where Ebert was being a smart azz about this:

In the wake of over a dozen murders at a movie theater in Colorado, film critic Roger Ebert rushed to decry America's "insane" gun laws in a New York Times op-ed. Within the piece, he pooh-poohed concealed carry laws by noting that no one in the theater shot back at the gunman.

But Ebert misses an important point. The Cinemark theater chain has a "gun-free zone" policy.

In the NYT, Ebert chided America for allowing gun ownership for the common man. That James Holmes is insane, few may doubt. Our gun laws are also insane, but many refuse to make the connection. The United States is one of few developed nations that accepts the notion of firearms in public hands. In theory, the citizenry needs to defend itself. Not a single person at the Aurora, Colo., theater shot back, but the theory will still be defended. [emphasis added]

Of course, if Ebert had bothered to check before trying to use this murderous crime for his own anti-Second Amendment purposes, he may have found that no one could have shot back, because the theater chain does not allow its customers to carry guns in its theaters.

posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:48 PM
Just to throw my two unwanted cents onto the pile. Note, i feel for all the victims (direct and indirect) of this tragic event, many innocents lost their lives, and the survivors perhaps have lost a little bit (or a lot) of themselves. Honestly my condolences to anyone directly or indirectly affected by this.

Firstly there are number of lawsuits filed, but dont see the inside of the courtroom (due to being outside of the law in general).

However say this does and the victims won you'd then have the following scenarios:

1. Cinema has to pay, movie tickets increase by double to cover extract armed security officers, including external patrol, camera coverage, and armed units inside the cinema's themselves.
2. All patrons WILL submit to a search, and metal detection before entering
3. Any patron found loitering will be detained, until the PD arrive to have them arrested for tresspass

Pretty much pushing the cinema experience to that of entering in an Airport, why? To prevent the precident from the lawsuit happening again. Not only that but general businesses WILL close -

This would set a VERY bad precident for public liability. Someone beats someone in a cafe, the Cafe owner is held responsible, thus is sued, they go bankrupt. More events (Staged or unstaged) happen, more business fold. Other businesses close because they cannot afford insurance (insurance companies go belly up). Pretty much only leaving the MASSIVE chains open because they can afford the insurance, of course meaning most products go up in price. I'm pretty sure i dont need to paint the rest of the picture.

posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:52 PM
reply to post by Annie Mossity

Yup!! It is this culture of litigation and propensity to sue that has eroded the common sense of the nation. The fact that someone's very first instinct after coming out of a coma isn't to be grateful, but for revenge.

Insurance companies and lawyers are a large factor WHY we will soon all be patted down at the movie theatre. This sub-standard point of view will soon require us all to wear helmets 24/7. You may think this absurd but it's not far from the future.

I recall living in the U.S. a short while, and a vehicle nearly hit an American companion and I while out for a leisurely stroll. As the dumb driver was speeding away, my buddy yelled "you %$&#@, I'm gonna sue!!"
I casually remarked that this was an odd reaction. Where I'm from, this wouldn't have even crossed my/our mind. I calmly explained that we don't really sue people for stuff like this where I'm from. Needless to say he didn't believe me and thought I was speaking in 'tongues' or something.

I guess it's just the way it is down there. Kind of sad really.

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 02:00 AM
Some months ago, I seem to recall reading another thread on here somewhere where someone mentioned that in some cases one had to launch legal action in order to claim (sometimes) on home owners insurance.
It was explained that a particular case of suing was not raised in order to actually sure somebody, but really to get the legal paperwork in order that an insurance claim can be raised.

Can someone shed any light on this fact/memory/legend/story, and if it would apply in this case?

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 02:22 AM

Originally posted by freethinker123
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?

They arrested him, he will see his day in court, and hopefully get the death penalty. What comeback do you think is more appropriate? Suing the cinema will achieve only stricter access controls (aren't we already tired of hearing about the TSA, well this will ensure similar security will be put in place at theatres) and higher priced tickets.


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.

Umm, the entire premise of this law suit is because he used the exit door to arm himself. He left the cinema through the fire exit and came back. So...

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.

And when the day comes that you need to sign a disclaimer to enter a cinema to watch a movie, which absolves the cinema and any associated company of having any duty of care, gunmen will be able to walk in freely and shoot you, while the staff are legally required to do nothing. If they do, another law suit may hit them.

That's not the world I want to see... yet every day it gets closer and closer...

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 08:26 AM
reply to post by alfa1

Well that is certainly an interesting angle... I'd really like to hear if this is true; perhaps I'll look into it myself when I get some more time. It seems ludicrous to me, but what doesn't these days?

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in