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.

 

Possible Lawsuit Over Aurora Movie Shootings Targets Owner

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Okay, these days apparently nothing can happen without lawyers somewhere seeing dollar signs and putting hard currency numbers to the loss. Some condemn Nazi's of our distant past for the practice of breaking down the value of a human being into separate 'parts' with a dollar and cent value assigned.

How many people knew the modern insurance industry does roughly the same? There are guidelines if you lose a finger, an arm, a leg or a combination of the three. Based upon your position in the household, earning potential and general value to society....those losses already have dollar amounts assigned in general terms for the lawyers to start haggling check amounts. However, THIS just makes me sicker than usual for some reason.


AURORA, Colo. (CBS4) – A possible lawsuit is brewing over the shootings at the Aurora movie theater, and there may be many more. The suit could target the owner of the theater.


I'd first love to know just what the theater OWNER was supposed to have done differently?? Locked the back door? Hmm.. Fire hazard. That could never have happened. Perhaps armed guards?? Well, Police WERE outside helping with crowds and traffic for the big opening night. Guards INSIDE? Yeah, a cross fire with lunatic right through a theater of panicked people.



Lawyers in New York they say Cinemark is the main entity they’re planning to go after for compensation for the victims. They’re hoping they can reach some sort of settlement right off the bat, but they’re prepared to go to court.

“We have the experience and the contacts to hopefully end this litigation quickly,” attorney Marc Bern said.


Doesn't this part just say it all?? This isn't about change or someting being DONE by the process of a court case and accountability. Their greatest hope is a settlement "right off the bat". It's about MONEY...and nothing more than money. Finally though....


Bern says right now they’re investigating to see if there were any past incidents at the theater and if there should have been more security there. Also in their crosshairs, the mental health professionals suspect James Holmes saw in the past.
Source

It's awfully good of them to state they are at least looking for whether real basis for error exists....just a shame that comes AFTER intent to sue and scaring them into a settlement for big checks to everyone is shown to be the #1 priority.

Now I'm all for checking hard into Dr. Rx Pad thhat he'd been seeing for awhile before going criminally insane and murdering so many people in cold blood. Anyone who sees that shell of a human being in Court and doesn't see someone so brain fried as to question his ability to have committed the crime at all is just seeing a different person than I am.

Of course...some Psych peddling Rx solutions to college students doesn't have VERY VERY deep pockets the way a major corporation like Cinemark does....so it's a matter of bleeding fees and paychecks out of the big one first...then the pack of sharks will turn to the Psych who ought to be the focus to begin with, in my opinion.

What is our nation becoming when the only sound louder than the crowd of investigators to a major tragedy is the stampeding feet of lawyers running to sue the biggest target they can find? It's sickening...it really has become that.




posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
The lawyers didn't create the money game.... they're adapting to the situation for the people who are getting the shaft.

When starting an establishment ... you always consider what will happen if SHTF... the theater owner was surely anticipating lawsuits. He'd be surprised if there wasn't.

"...we're into Plan B. Still breathing? Now we gotta make the best of it, improvise, adapt to the environment, Darwin, $hit happens, I Ching, whatever man, we gotta roll with it."
edit on 8-9-2012 by MikhailBakunin because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikhailBakunin
The lawyers didn't create the money game.... they're adapting to the situation for the people who are getting the shaft.

When starting an establishment ... you always consider what will happen if SHTF... the theater owner was surely anticipating lawsuits. He'd be surprised if there wasn't.
edit on 8-9-2012 by MikhailBakunin because: (no reason given)

The burglar who cleans out my neighbors house didn't invent the crime either....they're just following the path many a scumbag before them blazed to follow.

I'm sorry, but I can't even begin to play at seeing the "other side" here. Short of paramilitary guards toting their own M-4 rifles and body armor, there was NOTHING the Theater owner could have done to stop or even mitigate the threat of a madman with high power weapons and the intent to kill as many as he possibly could with them.

Shall they sue the landlords of the apartment complex too? After all, he made his apartment into the world's largest I.E.D.. Surely there must be someone there who owes money to lawyers for something too.


edit on 8-9-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 
Why not sue the government? Holmes was a citizen, right? The government should have prevented this from happening. I think they should also immediate strengthen the surveillance grid.

What about the school he attended? Surely someone there must have known there was something wrong with this kid.

Why not sue his mother? Had she just aborted him or used protection in the first place, this never would have happened.

I'm sorry - but sometimes we just can't assign blame for the sake of assigning blame or making someone pay. I think this suit is highly flawed from the get-go.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 
And we also have to consider this - if this lawsuit moves forward, and succeeds on any level, is every theater operation in the US now also subject to suit or new requirements as I would say that almost all of them are in a like situation?

In almost every interaction or event in our lives, a lunatic could pop out of nowhere and start shooting - what measures will have to be taken to safeguard general daily living? Who CAN'T be sued since effectively everyone is under-prepared to prevent what some crazy person might decide to do at any given time in any given place?

Stupid, stupid, stupid...



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
The theater was a "no gun zone". They should be liable just for removing the citizen's capacity to defend themselves. I have no sympathy for those owners. Bankrupt them imo.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Shall they sue the landlords of the apartment complex too? After all, he made his apartment into the world's largest I.E.D.. Surely there must be someone there who owes money to lawyers for something too.


edit on 8-9-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)


Now you're thinking.... this isn't about trying to impress your 6th grade girlfriend with a box of chocolates and devoting your heart/undying love for her... proving your the most honest and as close to perfect boyfriend she'll find....

this is ... you find the loophole and you exploit it 'til high heaven.... if you're a lion and your cubs need to eat... you're going to go after the slowest gazelle with a limp...

What's right and what's wrong is for Sunday school.... those bullets Holmes shot didn't have any discrimination for who's flesh it ripped through... so why should the victim's lawyers discriminate as to what avenue to take into exploiting the situation as well?

When in combat... and this most certainly is combat... when fired upon, if capable, you always return fire. And to think... if some fatman smoking a big cigar just made a bunch of money while I'm getting shot at... so I'm getting shot at for this fatman's entertainment... darn right I'm suing.
edit on 8-9-2012 by MikhailBakunin because: wrong name lol



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 
And we also have to consider this - if this lawsuit moves forward, and succeeds on any level, is every theater operation in the US now also subject to suit or new requirements as I would say that almost all of them are in a like situation?

In almost every interaction or event in our lives, a lunatic could pop out of nowhere and start shooting - what measures will have to be taken to safeguard general daily living? Who CAN'T be sued since effectively everyone is under-prepared to prevent what some crazy person might decide to do at any given time in any given place?

Stupid, stupid, stupid...



So... if you create an establishment... you're saying you should not be held accountable for what happens on your establishment?

If you have a successful day... you reap the rewards right? But if you have a bad day for the establishment... you're allowed to pass the blame towards someone else?

What kinda schools did you go to when a kid? O_o



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Yes I think it is sickening that the lawyers are going to make a packet on this awful situation, but going after the theatre owner? He is not responsible for the actions of people just because they are in his theatre. If they tripped over a loose carpet and got hurt, then yes he is directly responsible but not for a crime like this.
It makes as much sense as making a law suit against the weapons manufacturers or establishemnts who sold the weapons/ammo.....wait, that actually would make more sense!

So by the same logic every car accident or person getting knocked down should make a law suit against Highway Maintenance? Or the car manufacturer? Or if you get hurt due to a bar brawl you make a law suit against the bar/hotel? Or you get mugged/attacked at a railway station, you gonna make a law suit agaist the railway company? Of course not!

No amount of compensation will bring these people back or make their families feel better, but the lawyers will be more than happy to rake in a profit over it all.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Totally a tangent...

I read the thread title 10 times and still could make neither heads nor tails of it. Is it me, my grammar, or is the syntax klutzy?

Sorry. Not trying to derail.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by MikhailBakunin
 
If you create a dangerous or unsafe environment by any reasonable standards, sure.

But if your establishment is no more dangerous than 99% of others out there that people visit every day without a second thought while a lunatic could come in with a gun and start shooting - then it makes no sense for someone to try to hold you liable, unless they're also going to try to hold everyone else of like situation liable for imposing the exact same risk.

It's an unreasonable argument, and downright silly. Say you're having a party at your house, and someone uninvited comes in and starts shooting people - you're liable for that? Great point...



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by MikhailBakunin
 

Say you're having a party at your house, and someone uninvited comes in and starts shooting people - you're liable for that? Great point...



If anyone came to a party and started shooting up the party.... you think anyone at that party will admit to inviting the person and his/her onslaught? Of course not. *THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE/ESTABLISHMENT/PROPERTY WOULD BE AT THE THROAT OF THE PARTY-THROWER REGARDLESS OF CIRCUMSTANCES ON WHO INVITED WHO, YOU AND I BOTH KNOW THIS*

The prosecution would do anything and everything to smear this person and their family (regardless of how many good samaritans are of relation).... and no one would even know if this person's life was probably threatened and in panic mode defending him/herself.

In said actions... the full truth is and will never be known and plays no part in the conclusion to these cases. What is known is whatever is brought with evidence by attorneys and what the jury accepts. That's it.

All of your guys anger-led emotion towards opinions and right/wrong has no place in the court of law or how criminal acts are followed in the protocol of due-process.


Yes... feel sympathy for the owner of said establishment and victims. But to say the owner sits back counting his bills and gets free publicity is absurd.

Remember folks, saying this is the same as car accidents or the logic behind it.... cannot be directly applied as business law is a tad bit different than traffic/automobile accidents and whatever else you guys are blindly applying entirely different situations in a flawed way of smearing the lawyer's intent.
edit on 8-9-2012 by MikhailBakunin because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

is this your final answer ??

I'm sorry, but I can't even begin to play at seeing the "other side" here. Short of paramilitary guards toting their own M-4 rifles and body armor, there was NOTHING the Theater owner could have done to stop or even mitigate the threat of a madman with high power weapons and the intent to kill as many as he possibly could with them.
no offense intended but what Cinemark could have done was permit an open carry environment and that alone quite possibly would have eliminated this theatre from being involved at all.

criminals don't choose locations where they have the greatest risk of personal damage ... they are more interested in collateral damage and Cinemark provided 2 cinemas at max capacity with in-house restrictions regarding self-defense. that's irresponsible.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Whenever someone goes into business... you are putting your neck out on the line for various things in hope of success and prosperity.

Whatever happens on the property that you chose for your business can be put on YOU ultimately, success and failure.... life or death.... okay... it's disgusting and it's crazy yada yada yada.

But it is duly noted when you sign the contract... you pray to god some nut job doesn't happen to choose your place to commit the worst act of the 21st century... because it can be put on you for the simple fact that YOU put YOUR name on the DOTTED LINE....

If this simple fact did not exist... insurance companies would be getting a lot less money from businesses.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 

Say you're having a party at your house, and someone uninvited comes in and starts shooting people - you're liable for that?
yep, you sure are ... homeowner's insurance usually takes care of the property damage (other's cars, windows, stuff like that) and you can be sued for all medical, even though each injured party may have their own coverage.
Existing coverage companies will sue the homeowner for recovery and individuals can sue the homeowner for their deductibles paid.

sorry dear, but that is how it works.
and in the end, it's usually the lawyers who are shopping for new toys.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ABNARTY
Totally a tangent...

I read the thread title 10 times and still could make neither heads nor tails of it. Is it me, my grammar, or is the syntax klutzy?

Sorry. Not trying to derail.


I'd considered what to use as the thread title......The title is literally the same as the article used in the source link. Sorry if it confused anyone.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

is this your final answer ??

I'm sorry, but I can't even begin to play at seeing the "other side" here. Short of paramilitary guards toting their own M-4 rifles and body armor, there was NOTHING the Theater owner could have done to stop or even mitigate the threat of a madman with high power weapons and the intent to kill as many as he possibly could with them.
no offense intended but what Cinemark could have done was permit an open carry environment and that alone quite possibly would have eliminated this theatre from being involved at all.

criminals don't choose locations where they have the greatest risk of personal damage ... they are more interested in collateral damage and Cinemark provided 2 cinemas at max capacity with in-house restrictions regarding self-defense. that's irresponsible.



This was pretty well talked to death at the time by myself and others who DO carry firearms on a daily basis, but allowing guns into that theater is where I WOULD have supported suing the owner on solid cause.

It was a dark theater in the throes of a crowd experiencing full panic and gunshots half deafening anyone within 50 feet of him. That SOUND issue is always one even these stories never touch on...but trust me..no one anywhere near him was hearing anything normally after the first couple unmuffled gunshots.

Throw into that mess....relatively untrained civilian weapons carriers who have likely never heard a shot fired in anger, let alone had to pull their own trigger to end the life of another human being...with all that split second decision carries with it.

We would have wanted that element mixed with the lunatic already shooting wildly into a crowd? How many more would have died by friendly fire, so to speak? The New York Police shooting recently where 100% of the civilians shot came from POLICE bullets....ought to show the logic here. That was in broad daylight and with perfect visibility. In a dark theater? It'd be a nightmare.

So......in terms of wishing someone had a gun to use against a man planned and prepared for just that event with his Body armor, I'm GLAD no one had a weapon. It likely saved lives in this case...and again, I am CCW permitted and I do carry daily. I'd have left it holstered in anything like this though. My 2 cents.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

ahhh, bad english is common around here (i know i'm guilty) ... however, maybe something like "Potential lawsuit against Cinemark over Aurora Shootings" ... would lessen the confusion for some.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
The theater was a "no gun zone". They should be liable just for removing the citizen's capacity to defend themselves. I have no sympathy for those owners. Bankrupt them imo.


OHHH!!! Good one!! Never thought about that one!!


Really, the theater is at fault here by putting the movie-goers at risk by DENYING them the ability to DEFEND themselves against a DANGEROUS THREAT that the theater FAILED to protect them against. They FAILED their customers BIG-TIME!! SUE 'EM good I say.

Good one DarthMuerte!!

edit on 8-9-2012 by HangTheTraitors because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

i really don't follow your line of thinking here.
when the owner "assumes risk" by altering the status quo, he/they should be liable.

The owner had several options to assign the risk away from the business, however, he/they did not.

would you suggest that those who were injured should just "suck it up" or what ??
don't they deserve reparation for their damages ??

who else do you believe would or should be liable ??
[pssssst - gun owner here too - who has discharged under duress]

not engaging in your hyperbole as we weren't there, were we ??
i tend to think differently than what you posted, so, i'll respect your opinion and ask that you stay on topic.

you're actually comparing the shooting skill of cops to responsible gun owners ??

thanks for the chuckle ... talk about comparing apples to bananas.




top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join