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: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
I can’t believe there are people here who think the theater is liable.


Here’s thought…

Just like a restaurant or gas station who would put up a precautionary sign saying the floor it wet, maybe the theaters should put up a sign saying they are not responsible if some crazed maniac comes in with a gun(s) and kills a boat load of people. No?

And in case people don’t see the sign, we can give everyone a pamphlet when they come into the theater with every known language imaginable. We wouldn’t want to hear someone say they couldn’t read it because the language wasn’t written in Swahili.

Can you see how ridiculous this is starting to sound?



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




posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Propulsion
 

are you of the mistaken impression that a warning sign eliminates liability ??
it doesn't. it mitigates risk but it certainly doesn't absolve it.

had Cinemark required patrons to sign a release of liability waiver, Cinemark could be off the hook but they didn't and they openly (by signage) prohibited the most basic of self-defense.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Propulsion
 

are you of the mistaken impression that a warning sign eliminates liability ??
it doesn't. it mitigates risk but it certainly doesn't absolve it.

had Cinemark required patrons to sign a release of liability waiver, Cinemark could be off the hook but they didn't and they openly (by signage) prohibited the most basic of self-defense.
Well, maybe for an extra $20,000 a month, the insurance company for the theater can have a clause added to the policy to cover the damages if something terrible were ever to occur? But as crooked as attorneys are, they would find a way around it. After all, that is what they do.

You do know the end result of this? Another 1-2 dollars added to the cost of a movie ticket.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I agree with you.

This is a quote from another thread in which i commented:


I could understand if the theaters were supposed to have metal detectors or something, but the fact that an armed citizen can't always prevent all crime, thereby making the establishment responsible, it's silly. Weren't there armed people at the Loughner shooting (who actually DIDN'T use their weapons), so what did it matter?

The water example is a terrible analogy. Water has neither free will nor consciousness, and the fact that banning weapons had NOTHING to do with the shooter or his intentions or actions or subsequent results..

C'mon.

Someone can walk in most places, if one desired, and commit violence or shoot someone, regardless if a weapons policy is in place or not, so why should the establishment be responsible unless they set up ridiculous measures to ensure ALL threats are minimized? Impossible.


Every (private) institution or business, etc can NOT feasibly reduce ALL potential threats while still keeping it open and free to the public, so the fact that the owner is being sued is just ridiculous.

Always looking to blame someone it seems...if it makes them feel better (or get some money).






posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
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.

I'm not sure where the status quo was altered there. Are we suggesting that every business which posts no gun signs or chooses not to encourage the carrying of firearms on their property be held liable for anything that happens afterward?? It's already suggested that the OPPOSITE is true and those businesses who DO NOT prohibit it within CCW states ought to be liable if a gun owner gets stupid. Is there anything they can do where it's not lose/lose after a tragedy they didn't create?



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 ??

Police Officers were working outside and in the immediate area of the Theater. Short of hiring private military contractors to roam the halls in full battle rattle with M-4 rifles, I fail to see anything the owner could do in stopping a psychopath on full rampage.

Suck it up? Well... The alternative here is to rob the Theater owner of money for the sheer fact they HAVE some to take. They did nothing wrong..and even the article shows the Attorneys are JUST NOW LOOKING for what is actionable. That didn't stop the New York City law firm that repsented other high dollar, high profile cases from chasing this ambulance.


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

Ultimately only one party is liable here...and he's currently looking at enough charges to insure he dies in prison, never seeing free light or air again. IF his Psych had warning or reason to believe he was building to a breakdown...She ought to fry along side him. IF that Psych had him on mood drugs that had known side effects consistent with what happened...She should fry along side him. In the Psych we MAY have actual cause...unlike the theater owner whose only crime was owning the target this little psycho chose.


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.


I miss the hyperbole. Having untrained and inexperienced people shooting in a dark room with hundreds of innocent people running in all directions is an absolute certain formula to dead innocent people...purely by accident.

I imagine myself in that situation for just a moment and think back to the low light tactical shooting I did pay for training on. It's a nightmare to even consider. IF I had EVERYTHING lined up perfectly at a short distance, and right between his beady little eyes.........the odds of someone crossing my line of fire as I'm pulling the trigger is STILL too high to even joke about. I could fire to kill a bad guy, just to see the head of a child explode instead.....as a kid I never even saw in a dark room, ran across the line of fire. That's not hyperbole. It's what CCW trains people to think about when deciding NOT to shoot.



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

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


Cops shoot for a living. They qualify on a regular basis. Some departments, as often as once a month. Others, a couple times a year. They ARE better at shooting, in general terms, than any average civilian by sheer virtue of the fact their whole career depends on it. If they can't shoot, they get to hit the shelter and soup kitchen for their future dinners. I can't say that and nor can ANY average CCW carriers...

so yeah.. if cops can't even manage to shoot a bad guy in full daylight conditions, with time to evaluate and consider the situation as they walk up to it, without shooting several innocent people..... ..then I really am glad no one in that theater had a weapon to play John Wayne with. More would have died....and the CCW shooter would be a broken and ruined human being in living with what they'd done with the best of intentions.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Propulsion
 
whatever the expense, if it's the cost of doing business, it'll be written-off.

truthfully, i haven't spent $1 on a movie theatre ticket in more than 20yrs.
wouldn't hurt one bit if they did raise ticket prices.
the whole scheme is a rip-off anyway.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Are we suggesting that every business which posts 'no gun' signs or chooses not to encourage the carrying of firearms on their property be held liable for anything that happens afterward??
since that's been a legal standard, why change it now ??
does the number/quantity of wounded translate to less liability ?? i think not.


It's already suggested that the OPPOSITE is true and those businesses who DO NOT prohibit it within CCW states ought to be liable if a gun owner gets stupid.
yeah, the Gun Control crowd does like that stance, don't they ??

truth is, suggested and established are different forms of law.
suggested law isn't applicable as established.

already said ... limit their liability.
there are many ways available, shouldn't be the patrons' problem that the owner chose otherwise.

if you own a home without insurance and it gets leveled by a storm, should everyone else re-build you ?? if no, then why not ??

your failure to see isn't my problem friend.
cops on the premises seldom do anything but clean up the mess afterwards.
[yes, there are occasionally heroes in the mix but we're talking the majority here]

perhaps you envision paramilitary protection as necessary but i sure don't.

not getting into the details of that day, but these cops on site, why didn't they intervene ?? they certainly had plenty of opportunities.

your choice to emphasize greed over need is surprising.
i think i remember you complaining that these victims would likely be using "government" provided health insurance ... are you sure it's their greed you see ??

hey, i'm no fan of ambulance chasers either but this is hardly comparable.
i think you are reaching when you suggest Holmes is singularly responsible.
[for the record, i never said holmes wasn't responsible but that's a separate case]
Holmes part in this doesn't excuse the property owner.
i would agree with the psyche angle but that's also a separate case and separate filing.


I miss the hyperbole. Having untrained and inexperienced people shooting in a dark room with hundreds of innocent people running in all directions is an absolute certain formula to dead innocent people...purely by accident.
and, i'm guessing you never spent much time at a shooting gallery before you stepped up to the big boy toys, huh ??


as for collateral damage, it happens, i'd rather 1 or 2 than 58, you ??

i'm not arguing your nonsense, when i fired (under the stress of a home invasion), directly in line of sight (less than 2ft) of my target stood my mate, so don't tell me what I might have done. speak for yourself and your level of ability, no one else's.

oh please, some cops shoot for a living.
most cops only fire on the range.
and many cops retire without EVER firing while on the job


you are welcome to your glorification of the poor shooting skills cops openly display.
when they prove otherwise in the field, we can discuss updating my opinion.

ETA: it just dawned on me, i'd better offer advance condolences to the owners of the dogs that will surely be chosen as test subjects

edit on 8-9-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


No worries. Just making sure I'm not getting it mixed up.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
egads!! who is this piece of crap shark who is taking on this 'law' suite?? to settle it 'right of the bat'?? says it all...i hope the theater does not cave and settle..bring it to court, drag it over the public eye, make them PROVE that the theater could have done more....just chaps my hide..that said, if the walking waste of oxygen wins..what kind of precedent deos that set for future money grabers...



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by clearmind
egads!! who is this piece of crap shark who is taking on this 'law' suite?? to settle it 'right of the bat'?? says it all...i hope the theater does not cave and settle..bring it to court, drag it over the public eye, make them PROVE that the theater could have done more....just chaps my hide..that said, if the walking waste of oxygen wins..what kind of precedent deos that set for future money grabers...

We agree 100% That was kinda my point on the thread. We're getting lost on the what if's and the 'could have been's' to the point of distraction, but you home in on the one point that really matters.

The attorneys HOPE they never see a courtroom and only reluctantly note they are fully willing to proceed if they MUST. That really does bring it down to the simple points, doesn't it?

If it were about accountability or change or reform to prevent a future incident, the court to bring reform would be the path as it often is on cases seeking meaningful change. However, they get right down to it. It's 100% and from start to finish, about money. Nothing more, nothing less....and a settlement sooner than later is the whole goal. Sad, isn't it? People die and attorney's see dollar signs.


(I'd note too...at this stage, the basic facts aren't even established to any legal certainty...but settlement before any of that is known is, by the story here, the whole point. Booo...and another example of why any Lawyers are the butt of every bad joke)

(I came back to change the first line a bit..it might seemed I disagreed ..err definitely not and I forgot to star ya.
)
edit on 8-9-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
This is preposterous. What should the theater owners have done differently? Install TSA agents at every entrance?

If this lawsuit wins it is a great blow to every business and property owner in this country and may bring about higher insurance rates, that will translate to higher prices and possibly even more infringements on your rights. Don't defend these people. I feel a great deal of sympathy for them, but trying to make a buck off the business or some random crazies actions is not acceptable and should not be tolerated.

Let's say you invite a friend to your home (that you own) for dinner. A crazed lunatic breaks in and shoots the place up. Should you be sued? Of course not. There was no negligence, there was no way to protect them. Just because one person owns a piece of property or business does not mean they are liable for everything that happens on that property.

Let's take it a step further. Let's say you own a movie theater. A guy goes into the bathroom and commits suicide. Should you be liable for his decision to commit suicide in the bathroom of your establishment? No? Well then why should someone be liable when a crazy comes in off the streets and murders/wounds people?

I hate this sue everyone culture we're in. It's disgusting. Yeah maybe the insurance company will be forced to pick up the tab, but that will screw the business owner and the rest of us. Not a fan.

Wrabbit, your title was fine and I knew exactly what you were talking about when I read it, even if it was just the article headline lets not listen to dummies.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
OP I got to wonder why the focus here is on one businessman rather than upon the victims of the shooting and their families???

Frankly the PTSD alone may have a life changing financial and mental impact upon those in the cinema at the time, some might not feel able to work for years, others will be suffering physical injuries and paying hospital fees for years to come.

My concerns are with those ordinary people and not the cinema chain owner. How will they be able to lead normal lives? How will they be able to press for some meaning for the memory of the lives of their loved ones? So one guy stands to lose a high percentage of his profits? The hankees come out...

Welcome to America where these days the priorities seem to be defending the few who have more and not the many who have less.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by freethinker123
 

On strictly an emotional level, I might tend to agree with you. However, why is it anyone's responsibility to pay anyone for their injuries or the trauma they suffered that night? I think that is the basis this is all starting from and I'm disagreeing with right from square one.

It seems, as you word it there, that the great loss and suffering demand compensation, so someone must pay that and we can all safely bet the shooter himself has nothing to pay it with. Although, I'd note, that hasn't been established either....and his parents whelped the little monster. They seem at least as interesting a choice when the choice for who is to pay seems almost arbitrary compared to guilt. His own mother even seemed to lack any surprise and was quoted as saying they had the right guy in the first reports of her reaction.

So, it's not that I don't feel for the people here, but without a single shred of reasoning for how the Theater Owner caused this in any way at all, I can't begin to see how sending the Theater the bill is anything but a cheap strike at the most obvious target with money to take.

To put this another way, let's say you or I owned a small business... a storefront arcade, perhaps. Lets keep it simple and in the realm of what normal people could do with enough work. Lets say some friggen psychopath kicks the door in and just shoots the crap out of our customers. No reason....Your store, or mine, was picked at random. It had a poster or a video game of a character the shooter had a thing for.....NOTHING MORE to make you or I guilty of being where the example shooter decided to stage a massacre.

Now.....How much should you pay, if you're honest, by doing nothing more than some day long before that, deciding that might be a great spot to have your business? Thats about all this theater did. They were there. If not them. the maniac would have hit another. He wasn't focused on location, by ANY reports...just killing...and killing his neighbors too.

So again..why is this theater liable to pay a dime to anyone? Just because they CAN? This is America??



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 




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.


There are things he could have done. Perhaps he could have hired security to guard the emergency exit doors. In this context I mean people being stationed on the outside. Perhaps there could have been loud piercing alarms that would trigger when the doors the shooter used were opened. Don't get me wrong- I am not defending the rampant lawsuit society of the lawyers of today- I am merely saying that a courtroom might be the best place to absolve the owner of any responsibility/liability. If he wins not only is he cleared but the ambulance chasers will have to pay for it--literally. I don't find the comments said by the lawyers who decided to sue as meaningful. They are talking to the press after all. Of course they are going to say they are confident, have strong testimony, ETC.

Finally, what other recourse do the surviving patrons of the movie theater have? None. Our society has become so pusillanimous that lawsuits are the only action surviving victims can legally engage in. I don't blame lawyers for this situation. I blame the law makers and the law itself.

edit on 8-9-2012 by My_Reality because: ERROR!



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Great, now we're gonna have to go through metal detectors and get pat downs just to go see a movie...

Gotta love America...



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Propulsion
I can’t believe there are people here who think the theater is liable.





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


you're putting words in people's mouths... no one THINKS the theater is liable....

the law is... the owner of the establishment is at fault for anything that happens on the premises.

That's all. Me or anyone else for that matter's actual THOUGHTS on the situation are irrelevant and do not pertain to ANYTHING... do not make a piss in hell's chance for anything related to meaningful content in relevance to the situation at hand.

All this talk about... OH they should've been allowed guns... or putting a no gun zone sign up is crazy or all these shenanigans are off topic and have nothing to do with... the victims getting the little bit they can out of a very bad situation on a specific establishment's property.

That's it. I've yet to give my feelings or thoughts on what should or should not happen as I know that is completely delusional and inappropriate out of respect for the victims.

No one is pointing fingers at the owner... we're not saying the owner had anything to do with shooting and killing anyone except for the simple fact that the atrocious actions were committed on the property owned.

If you guys feel that a lawsuit put out against the ownership of the establishment is unlawful and completely illegitimate and incongruent to the matter then go write a poem somewhere or song and leave the adults to the reality grasping. Not for me or anyone else... but for the victims. Personally, it's kind of disgusting towards their behalf. It's out of place. It does not belong in a thread discussing the lawful procedure that is to be taken.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 11:06 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.


So you don't support property rights?

And a firefight in a crowded theater would have been even more of an absolute blood bath.
edit on 8-9-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by freethinker123
 

On strictly an emotional level, I might tend to agree with you. However, why is it anyone's responsibility to pay anyone for their injuries or the trauma they suffered that night? I think that is the basis this is all starting from and I'm disagreeing with right from square one.

It seems, as you word it there, that the great loss and suffering demand compensation, so someone must pay that and we can all safely bet the shooter himself has nothing to pay it with. Although, I'd note, that hasn't been established either....and his parents whelped the little monster. They seem at least as interesting a choice when the choice for who is to pay seems almost arbitrary compared to guilt. His own mother even seemed to lack any surprise and was quoted as saying they had the right guy in the first reports of her reaction.

So, it's not that I don't feel for the people here, but without a single shred of reasoning for how the Theater Owner caused this in any way at all, I can't begin to see how sending the Theater the bill is anything but a cheap strike at the most obvious target with money to take.

To put this another way, let's say you or I owned a small business... a storefront arcade, perhaps. Lets keep it simple and in the realm of what normal people could do with enough work. Lets say some friggen psychopath kicks the door in and just shoots the crap out of our customers. No reason....Your store, or mine, was picked at random. It had a poster or a video game of a character the shooter had a thing for.....NOTHING MORE to make you or I guilty of being where the example shooter decided to stage a massacre.

Now.....How much should you pay, if you're honest, by doing nothing more than some day long before that, deciding that might be a great spot to have your business? Thats about all this theater did. They were there. If not them. the maniac would have hit another. He wasn't focused on location, by ANY reports...just killing...and killing his neighbors too.

So again..why is this theater liable to pay a dime to anyone? Just because they CAN? This is America??



OK, so you want to compare youself to the owner, rather than the victims. That doesn't concern me so much, in the end the people at the top more often than not come up smelling of roses. I'd rather not look at your more realistic example of being a small business owner, because its getting away from the point - the owner of this cinema chain and the victims (and lawyers who benefit).

So you have placed yourself in the shoes of the owner and in the position of small business owner in the alternative comparison you provided? Lets now place ourselves in the shoes of those many people who were in the cinema auditorium at the time. When I / you essentially entered into a contract with the business (in this case the cinema) there were certain expectations that we had, one of them would certainly have been that our lives would not be put in jeapordy (barring natural disasters) and an expectation that measures would be undertaken to prevent risks of this type to a reasonable degree. If on the cinema ticket it was written explicitly that the customer enters the cinema at his own risk and that if one is shot or killed the cinema shall not be liable, that is a different matter entirely.

As customers, if some life changing disaster befalls us after making said contract, we surely have the right to a day in court if we believe that legal obligations were not fulfilled. From the perspective of a customer (all of us are essentially customers) its not our jobs or interest to think about what the businessmen (small minority of the population) should have done. But we can guess at it - what was security like at the cinema? Was there a failure there? Should there have been a security camera pointed at the fire exit? Should cinemas have metal detectors? Are there such things as fire doors which can't be propped open, or ones which sound a warning when they are opened? Why were they not installed?

There surely are many things which the cinema chain could have done, when even laymen such as myself can think of them off the top of our heads.

But I am left scratching that same head. In the US its always the little guys that get screwed and there are always people defending people who are rich and powerful enough to defend themselves.
edit on 8-9-2012 by freethinker123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by clearmind
egads!! who is this piece of crap shark who is taking on this 'law' suite?? to settle it 'right of the bat'?? says it all...i hope the theater does not cave and settle..bring it to court, drag it over the public eye, make them PROVE that the theater could have done more....just chaps my hide..that said, if the walking waste of oxygen wins..what kind of precedent deos that set for future money grabers...


is this the first time an establishment get's sued for illegal activity on the premises?

If not, why didn't this owner know about it? Or did he?

Why is everyone assuming the owner is not expecting lawsuits? Are we all assuming the owner cannot read fine print?



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by My_Reality
 



There are things he could have done. Perhaps he could have hired security to guard the emergency exit doors. In this context I mean people being stationed on the outside. Perhaps there could have been loud piercing alarms that would trigger when the doors the shooter used were opened.

Now those are interesting ideas, actually. The doors can't be locked for fire reasons, of course...and the doors are used by design as primary exits in most movie theaters I've ever been in. They're used as much to give the people in the theater a way out without making a larger mass of people through the lobby as for people coming in to not meet a wall of people all leaving a theater at once. However..... Security at the doors to simply stop freeloaders on such a high profile opening night might have been a good idea.

I'm not sure it would have done more than get a guard shot first....since our psychopath had at least the 100 rounds on the AR- plus the handgun and shotgun. He was looking for quite a spectacle until his AR jammed and the others ran empty.


As far as what other recourse? Well.. That's what I'd said earlier. It's not about whether I relate to the owner over victims or anything like that. It's about whether action is taken against someone who is deserving of penalty. I mean this is a real person and the corporation, made up of real people. The rush to nail someone..anyone..for dollars alone, totally secondary to legitimate blame, is scary.

In that way though, you also raise an interesting point. If these attorney's showed the least interest in ever seeing a court room and not doing the ambulance chaser's shuffle in pushing more immediate settlement for pure cash, then it might prove to be worthwhile. It would certainly be a second civil venue for ALL the facts to come out, separate from the criminal side that is already gagged tight.

If only the lawyers had any interest in court or anything aside from pure cash money.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join