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; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I have no idea what you just posted....I will get some coffee and look it over again...
August 7th, 2012 06:00 PM
I have no idea what you just posted....I will get some coffee and look it over again
August 7th, 2012 09:04 PM
Been reading with interest. But the question in my mind is why is it so hard to believe, that a business that refuses the lawful exercise of people to carry weapons for SD, and refuses or neglects to take the necessary measures to look after the safety of those denied not held to some standard of liable?
The reason I think there may be an issue here, is because I was involved on a lawsuit while operating a private security company, and a death happened on the property as a result of a fight between two people.
The client, I worked for, in an attempt to save a few dollars, would not let us begin our duties until after midnight, despite our recommendation to start earlier.
The jury found in favor of the deceased family, saying that that my client had a duty to provide security.
They paid for it.
It doesn't matter what anyone here thinks. If it goes to trial, remember the jury is not bound by shadow of a doubt. It's based on an entirely different objectivity.
Who would have ever thought a person could sue McDonalds for hot coffee? Or think of all the other suits that have won.
I believe there is a definite possibility here. And it could be big for gun owners if it's played right.
Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.
August 7th, 2012 09:26 PM
Peckman what we are talking about here is NOT a government mandate on how someone uses their property. I agree with you 100% that the Government should not be able to tell someone what they have to do with property they own. I also think that if a business wants to declare themselves a "GUN FREE ZONE" then that is also fine. BUT if someone gets injured or killed as a result of your dangerous policies on a piece of property that you "Chose" to run a business on and open up to the public then you are definitely responsible. I don't think we should "outlaw" gun free zones, we should just sue the crap out of any business that has a gun free zone in which they fail to provide for customer safety and someone gets hurt.
Originally Posted by peckman28
Remember, this is the same situation as a store that has wet floors without a safety sign out and someone gets hurt. It is not illegal to mop the floors and it is not illegal to fail to put up a sigh to warn your customers. after all its your business and you can do what you want, but if a customer gets injured because of the conditions you set forth (wet floor or gun free zone) and you did not properly provide for their safety (warning them that the floor was wet or posting armed security to keep customers alive) than you may as well sign a blank check.
August 7th, 2012 09:30 PM
I agree, folks can get money for about any law suit. M wife was an ob/gyn nurse for awhile and she could not beleive what folks were suing for and getting money for. Basically folks want 100 percent protection and have a zero fault mentality.
Will a win in the lawsuit be good for CC'ers? Who knows. But if it creeps into individual property rights where a homeowner is responsible if they do not let a friend bring his gun into their house and he gets shot by a robber then this country has gone too far. But with this sue happy nation you darn well know that law suits will soon start flying everywhere also.
August 7th, 2012 09:32 PM
What about a business that allows CC'ers in and there is an AD or ND and someone is killed....do yo not think the owner will be sued as well as the idiot with the gun becasue the owner allowed guns on the premesis
Originally Posted by jeremy1981
Question: For those that want to sue becasue the premise is that if you are denied the right to carry your weapon to the theater and becasue of that there should be more security, should not the only people who can sue would be CC holders that did not bring a weapon.
It seems like folks are saying it is a trade off-if you are allowed to bring your gun then you need less security.
If that is not the case then this is a pure negligence lawsuit which has no bearing on whether it had a gun buster sign or not.
August 7th, 2012 09:57 PM
You keep bring up homeowners and this has nothing to do with homeowners. We are talking about is a business that is open to the public and CHARGES admission thus taking on the responsibility of security especially when you deny other the means to defend themselves
Originally Posted by suntzu
If there was no history of violence you would have a good point but as you can see (article below) there is a history of it when a movie like the dark knight is shown
Colorado Shooting Recalls History of Theater Violence - ABC News
Search tags for this page
ccw instructor sued
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.