Ignatious Piazza offers to fund CCW denial Cinemark lawsuit - Page 13

Ignatious Piazza offers to fund CCW denial Cinemark lawsuit

This is a discussion on Ignatious Piazza offers to fund CCW denial Cinemark lawsuit within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Cokeman Guys, shut up already. Noone is forcing you to read....

Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 391011121314151617 LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 246
Like Tree63Likes

Thread: Ignatious Piazza offers to fund CCW denial Cinemark lawsuit

  1. #181
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Cokeman View Post
    Guys, shut up already.
    Noone is forcing you to read.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor


  2. #182
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    Adequate security for ingress via the fire door sounding an alarm.
    Again. Fire doors are not designed to keep people from coming in. They are designed to allow people to go out without obstruction.

    Now we are using Walmart as a security standard. Really. Are their dock/warehouse doors fitted with alarms? Would they be liable if someone used those doors to start attacking people?
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  3. #183
    Senior Member Array Cokeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,001
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Noone is forcing you to read.
    Noone? Who is that? I don't know him. Does he post here? Why is he forcing me to read?
    Glock 23 - CZ 452 ZKM Special - Walther P22
    LMT STD 16 - Mossberg 500A - Kahr P380
    Henry H001Y - Winchester 12
    Smith & Wesson M&P Shield - Mossberg 500B
    Marlin 336Y - Kahr MK9

  4. #184
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,969
    Quote Originally Posted by barstoolguru View Post
    And still no reasonable answer to the question…. Thanks for posting
    I did not know that question was asked of me I will gladly answer your question. There is no one answer. Every situation and establishment is different. After any tragedy folks do an after action and see what went wrong. That does not mean negligence. You can hindsight the Aurora tragedy and say that if the doors were alarmed then the BG would not have used that theater because he obviously checked out the theater ahead of time. But with that logic we can go full circle and say that he knew the doors were alarmed and so he snuck in an Uzi under a coat. Then he killed everybody. If that happened then folks would be saying in hindsight that they should have had metal detectors.
    Negligence is not hindsighting something and then saying if this was in place the tragedy would not have happened.
    If you want a quantitative number you will just have to wait until you find someone stupid enough to think that there is an answer for that.
    The answer you want is not quantitative.

  5. #185
    Ex Member Array barstoolguru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    under a rock in area 51
    Posts
    2,548
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Again. Fire doors are not designed to keep people from coming in. They are designed to allow people to go out without obstruction.

    Now we are using Walmart as a security standard. Really. Are their dock/warehouse doors fitted with alarms? Would they be liable if someone used those doors to start attacking people?
    wal mart was brought up as a metaphor, even if someone was to enter in through a fire door at wally world the numbers would have been a whole lot less. No; we are talking about doors that give access to a large numbers of people in a condensed place

  6. #186
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,154
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Again. Fire doors are not designed to keep people from coming in. They are designed to allow people to go out without obstruction.

    Now we are using Walmart as a security standard. Really. Are their dock/warehouse doors fitted with alarms? Would they be liable if someone used those doors to start attacking people?
    We can agree that a fire exit is a fire exit. But think about two things concurrently, farronwolf. We're talking about criminal use of fire exits. Criminals use things not as intended. It's part of what makes them criminals. Alarmed doors expose use, including criminal use, thus upsetting the criminal OODA loop and perhaps baffling the crime.
    IANAL and can't speak to WM's liability for ingress of criminals and wouldn't want to oppose WM on that legal tack. Again, all I'm talking about is use of fire exits to commit a crime and the benefit of alarming fire exits, how it may have helped in Aurora, and that it is a minimal expectation in a public gathering that bans carrying.
    What are you trying to prove? That businesses that ban carrying have lax security and learn nothing and make no changes following a mass shooting and that their right to do so precludes our right to comment?
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  7. #187
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,154
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    You can hindsight the Aurora tragedy and say that if the doors were alarmed then the BG would not have used that theater because he obviously checked out the theater ahead of time. But with that logic we can go full circle and say that he knew the doors were alarmed and so he snuck in an Uzi under a coat. Then he killed everybody. If that happened then folks would be saying in hindsight that they should have had metal detectors.
    Negligence is not hindsighting something and then saying if this was in place the tragedy would not have happened.
    Layers of security. Plug all the leaks before banning carrying.
    barstoolguru likes this.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  8. #188
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,969
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    Layers of security. Plug all the leaks before banning carrying.
    I agree 100 percent with that. II disagree that every time something bad happens that there is negligence. If the shooter in Aurora came in with an Uzi through the front door then I am sure somebody would be sueing for "not adequate security".

  9. #189
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    We can agree that a fire exit is a fire exit. But think about two things concurrently, farronwolf. We're talking about criminal use of fire exits. Criminals use things not as intended. It's part of what makes them criminals. Alarmed doors expose use, including criminal use, thus upsetting the criminal OODA loop and perhaps baffling the crime.
    IANAL and can't speak to WM's liability for ingress of criminals and wouldn't want to oppose WM on that legal tack. Again, all I'm talking about is use of fire exits to commit a crime and the benefit of alarming fire exits, how it may have helped in Aurora, and that it is a minimal expectation in a public gathering that bans carrying.
    What are you trying to prove? That businesses that ban carrying have lax security and learn nothing and make no changes following a mass shooting and that their right to do so precludes our right to comment?
    Yes criminals do bad things. You can not stop them, and can never take enough measures to stop them when someplace is open to the public.

    Now think about the loss of business or dissatisfaction of movie goers when every time some numb nut went out the nicely lit fire exit when they didn't want to wait for the rest of the people to exit the theater. Not only causing disruption of the theater where the exit was used, but all 10, 12, or 15 other theaters where people are watching another movie. Stopping all movies, figuring out if a true fire exists or if it is simply the door opened. Then they have to get everyone back in the theater, make sure they still have their tickets, then start the movie back where they think they left off. Big pain in the rear. If they have fire/smoke alarms or the fire box with pull lever that sound when an actual fire threat is present, that is reasonable.

    I am not trying to prove anything other than a business needs to take what they think is reasonable measures. Whether the theater bans concealed carry is irrelavent. Had they not banned guns and the outcome was still the same, would you still find them at fault for this tragedy because they didn't have the alarm on the door? What if they had the alarm on the door as I suggested before and the shooter set up outside where 2, 3, 4, or 5 theaters emptied through fire exits. Then he would have that many more folks to pick off as they exited the theater.

    How many theaters don't have alarms on their fire exits? I don't know. How many times has this method been used to enable someone to carry out a mass shooting. One that I know of. Whether the theater puts alarms on the exits now remains to be seen. Now that this method has been used they may in fact put them in. In hindsight, now they have something to base it off of, but before, this was no where in anyones mind, so how can they be liable for something wasn't on the radar?
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  10. #190
    Ex Member Array barstoolguru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    under a rock in area 51
    Posts
    2,548
    Yes criminals do bad things. You can not stop them, and can never take enough measures to stop them when someplace is open to the public.
    This is true BUT you don't have to make it easy. What if he bought a ticket and went in and tried to open the door and it had an alarm on it?
    What if just one person had a gun and shot back and gave someone an extra few seconds to get out?

  11. #191
    Member Array TravisABQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Moving to Texas
    Posts
    499
    I don't ask anybody to "protect" me....

    PROHIBITING ME from protecting myself and using legal force to do so, makes their lack of protection actionable.

    How many mass shootings have taken place where the victims were not legally disarmed, again?

    Discriminating against armed citizens should be as unacceptable as discriminating on the basis of race or religion.

  12. #192
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,154
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Yes criminals do bad things. You can not stop them, and can never take enough measures to stop them when someplace is open to the public.
    You can't cite any mass shootings in the airport secure zone. Attempts at smuggling destruction to souls and machines are thwarted - with enough security. But no mass shootings.
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    ....
    I am not trying to prove anything other than a business needs to take what they think is reasonable measures. Whether the theater bans concealed carry is irrelevant. Had they not banned guns and the outcome was still the same, would you still find them at fault for this tragedy because they didn't have the alarm on the door? What if they had the alarm on the door as I suggested before and the shooter set up outside where 2, 3, 4, or 5 theaters emptied through fire exits. Then he would have that many more folks to pick off as they exited the theater.
    Banning carry irrelevant? Not on this forum.
    No, I don't blame a business for the ills of the world. This is the point: Don't ban at least until ensuring a secure zone. You can "what-if" and "what-a-pain". But do right by the paying public, and, if you are a movie theater manager or policy decision maker, don't act like a tyrant that knows what's best for all.

    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    How many theaters don't have alarms on their fire exits? I don't know. How many times has this method been used to enable someone to carry out a mass shooting. One that I know of. Whether the theater puts alarms on the exits now remains to be seen. Now that this method has been used they may in fact put them in. In hindsight, now they have something to base it off of, but before, this was no where in anyone's mind, so how can they be liable for something wasn't on the radar?
    No excuses for failure of security. No excuses for banning carry. The governments and businesses that do so have no substantive, empirical leg on which to stand.
    You're starting to sound like the wolf that "got his leg caught in a trap and chewed off three legs and was still in it" (Amarillo Slim).
    baren likes this.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  13. #193
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,154
    Quote Originally Posted by TravisABQ View Post
    I don't ask anybody to "protect" me....

    PROHIBITING ME from protecting myself and using legal force to do so, makes their lack of protection actionable.

    How many mass shootings have taken place where the victims were not legally disarmed, again?

    Discriminating against armed citizens should be as unacceptable as discriminating on the basis of race or religion.
    I agree with you, TravisABQ. To the bold, I leave the count to you. Cities struck by active shooters include Killeen, TX (famously "gun-free" Luby's Restaurant); Austin, TX (Texas Tower Sniper. In 1961, many Texans carried and some took shots at the sniper); Edmond, OK ("gun-free" post office); Moss Lake, WA ("gun-free" middle school); Littleton, CO ("gun-free" Columbine HS); Jonesboro, AR ("gun-free" middle school); Red Lake, MN (many carry on an Indian Reservation); Montreal (gf); Los Angeles (gf religious community); Nickel Mines, PA ("gun-free" Amish school); Blacksburg, VA ("gun-free" Va Tech campus); Honolulu, HI ("gun-free" Xerox office); Ft. Hood, TX ("gun-free" military base); and Tucson, AZ (gun friendly), Aurora, CO ("gun-free" Cinemark), Oak Creek, WI (no ban?). They happen in and around shopping centers and malls, restaurants, schools, and churches. Most are "gun-free" zones. Some are not.
    This is not an argument for carrying as a cure for the psycho killer. It can't be. But there is no excuse for banning. Those who exercise their right to do so should see the foolish isolation of their position.
    Last edited by Pistology; August 6th, 2012 at 05:02 AM.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  14. #194
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,969
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    You can't cite any mass shootings in the airport secure zone. Attempts at smuggling destruction to souls and machines are thwarted - with enough security. But no mass shootings.
    What is your point? You want the same level of security they have at airports to be in theaters?

    No excuses for failure of security. No excuses for banning carry. The governments and businesses that do so have no substantive, empirical leg on which to stand.
    You're starting to sound like the wolf that "got his leg caught in a trap and chewed off three legs and was still in it" (Amarillo Slim).
    If this happened in the lobby or the guy carried the gun in through the front door because they had armed guards at all the fire exits folks would be screaming there was not enough security at the front doors and there should have been metal detectors is they banned carry. The fact is everybody's life is not dictated by the all mighty gun. No one is being discriminated by owning a gun like someone said. We all have choices. You feel like you need to be armed 100 percent of the time then that is cool. Everybody is different. If your solution to the the tragedy in Aurora is to have airport security at every place that bans carry then that is unreasonable. Unless of course you want to absorb the cost of the added security and the long wait lines.

    And I ask you this: If the theater allowed guns and there was an AD or ND...would the Cinema be liable at all? You darn well know that there would be a lawsuit brought against them..

  15. #195
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    I agree with you, TravisABQ. To the bold, I leave the count to you. Cities struck by active shooters include Killeen, TX (famously "gun-free" Luby's Restaurant); Austin, TX (Texas Tower Sniper. In 1961, many Texans carried and some took shots at the sniper); Edmond, OK ("gun-free" post office); Moss Lake, WA ("gun-free" middle school); Littleton, CO ("gun-free" Columbine HS); Jonesboro, AR ("gun-free" middle school); Red Lake, MN (many carry on an Indian Reservation); Montreal (gf); Los Angeles (gf religious community); Nickel Mines, PA ("gun-free" Amish school); Blacksburg, VA ("gun-free" Va Tech campus); Honolulu, HI ("gun-free" Xerox office); Ft. Hood, TX ("gun-free" military base); and Tucson, AZ (gun friendly), Aurora, CO ("gun-free" Cinemark), Oak Creek, WI (no ban?). They happen in and around shopping centers and malls, restaurants, schools, and churches. Most are "gun-free" zones. Some are not.
    This is not an argument for carrying as a cure for the psycho killer. It can't be. But there is no excuse for banning. Those who exercise their right to do so should see the foolish isolation of their position.
    Hmm. You might actually watch Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupps video. The Luby's Cafeteria was before Texas had CHL laws. Carrying anywhere was prohibited. So the whole state was a gun free zone when this shooting happened. If it isn't an argument for carrying as a cure for the psycho killer, what is your point exactly? You argue that they shouldn't ban carrying?

    You can wish all you want, but the fact remains that the property owner is in control of what they allow on their property. If you don't like their rules, don't go to their property, go to property which you own and set the rules for. They are basing their decisions on what they feel is best for their business, not whether someone dislikes their gun policy.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

ccw instructor sued

,

cinemark lawsuits

,

franklin county ccw denial

,

lawsuit against cinemark no firearms

,

powered by mybb area 51

,

powered by mybb class action lawsuit

,
powered by mybb denver concerts
,
powered by mybb minnesota personal injury lawyers
,

powered by mybb movie theater

,
powered by mybb movie theaters in
,

powered by mybb movie theatres

,

powered by mybb wisconsin personal injury lawyers

Click on a term to search for related topics.