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.


Possible Lawsuit Over Aurora Movie Shootings Targets Owner

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:51 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I have to agree with most of what you said. Hell, we are almost on the same page. In regards to the security officer standing guard outside; You are right, he most likely would have taken the first bullet. While that is tragic in itself it would give the owner a possible defense.

In regards to the lawyers and the owners. I also agree that action should be taken against the entities that truly deserve the penalty. In this modern world, however, the blame for actions has seemed to become so very twisted. That is what I meant when I referred to lawyers, the law and lawmakers. Personally, I believe that the only entity deserving of blame is the shooter himself. Unfortunately, what I believe is irrelevant to the courts of law. This fact is why I stated that lawyers are not to blame for this predicament. However, you bring up an interesting point. What you said about the lawyers is what I am referring to. It seems to me that if these lawyers had a drop of honorable blood in their system........perhaps they would be more interested in discovering the bold, ugly, dirty truth as opposed to settling OOC(out of court =D).

In this respect the lawmakers and the law are a non-issue. You have brought up a fair point that I apparently did not give as much consideration as I should have. The truth, however dirty and disgusting that it is, should be far more important than a meaningless OOC settlement. Personal wealth is a good thing but it should never take precedence over far more important societal duties.

posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 01:10 AM
reply to post by My_Reality

Well, indeed... I'd have to say our only disagreement was misunderstanding. Heck, it sounds like we do agree then. I wouldn't mind seeing this in an open court and owner or no owner liability proven where it needs to be. In court. If there is more to this and there is liability beyond the obvious....I dare say a jury in a trial will be far harsher than any settlement could be too. If such blame lies there.

More importantly though, there is so much about that whole thing that, as time goes on, doesn't track or set right. Maybe if he'd been prim and proper like Dahmer or Bundy were in court...or even just a jerk like Ramirez or Manson it would be far easier to take. You know? That space case...I don't see that lack of awareness being capable? If suing the owner/corp is what brings it into Civil court, I suppose I've come to see this a bit differently by your arguments as well.

..and we both agree that the idea of just milking this for pure cash with nothing beyond that is outright obscene it seems. The article even makes it sound like the New York firm picked up Colorado lawyers as a near after thought to keep their own control of the case legal. Sheesh.. I ought to say no more, lest I get a lawsuit from a New York firm.

posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 01:38 AM
reply to post by My_Reality

this is what makes the whole conversation difficult ...

In regards to the security officer standing guard outside; You are right, he most likely would have taken the first bullet.
whereas many others believe that any number of the officers present should have noticed the singular parked car in the back lot and taken appropriate action, whether that be monitoring or intervention.

where you both choose to perceive the worst --> he'd have been shot -- some of us see the potential for prevention of the entire incident.

and yes, i'd agree, even if he'd been shot, it would give Cinemark a leg to stand on.

Wrabbit (should) know i harbor no love for lawyers or their deeds.
however, without them in this instance, what recourse would the victims have ?

do you guys think cases present like the Erin Brokovich movie or what ??
OOC settlements are the mainstay of the profession

as much as i disagree with the process, complaining about it does what ?

personally, i wish any of the lawyers were fighting to have the gag order removed.
that would be an honorable effort that serves all.

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:31 AM
reply to post by Honor93

Indeed, I know you have no love for lawyers. lol...

Although I was thinking a bit on how to put this for a reply and I think I have a decent example that may fit better than I've been trying in terms of how this all seems to me.

OOC Settlements make sense on many things. Heck, I've been on the Plantiff side of a couple myself and they settled...much to my appreciation. They were traffic accidents, each of them and they were all..oddly..rear end collisions I was on the receiving end of. However, guilt and liability was never in question. Going to court to right some wrong was never an issue. All sides knew who did it and who would be paying for it. Amount was the only dispute and court for just that much? Kinda silly...and more than kinda wasteful for all involved.

I'm still back on the same issue here though... Unless we can even articulate what the Theater could have done, I cannot see a way clear to their paying any amount, let alone the mega millions a New York City firm would be pushing their way into this case to chase. We're dealing with a shooter who broke every law one can think of including the most serious crime any human can ever commit. Murder.

It just seems we're making a whole NEW victim of the theater...when nothing they do today, tomorrow or by court order could stop another deranged maniac with a trunk full of weapons and an apartment back home set to blow the whole building down to the foundations. Whatever cooked his noodle before court, he had brains enough to build that huge bomb and he had the brains to do as much as he did.....and cops working traffic outside apparently didn't deter him a bit, what would have?

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in