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...

Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 71314151617
Results 241 to 246 of 246
Like Tree63Likes

Thread: Ignatious Piazza offers to fund CCW denial Cinemark lawsuit

  1. #241
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,863
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    I have no idea what you just posted....I will get some coffee and look it over again

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #242
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    8,900
    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.
    Gurm70 likes this.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  4. #243
    Member Array jeremy1981's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    georgia
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    I have to agree. Property rights are not something we need to be undermining even more than we already have. The way to persuade these businesses is through dialogue, and failing that, by voting with your dollars, maybe boycotts if you want to go so far. Using the power of government to put yet another mandate on how they use the property THEY own, not YOU, is not the answer.
    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.
    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.

  5. #244
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,863
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    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.

  6. #245
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,863
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy1981 View Post
    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.
    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.
    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

    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.

  7. #246
    Ex Member Array barstoolguru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    under a rock in area 51
    Posts
    2,548
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    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.
    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
    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

Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 71314151617

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 florida building codes
,
powered by mybb minnesota personal injury lawyers
,
powered by mybb movie listing
,

powered by mybb movie theater

,

powered by mybb movie theatres

,

powered by mybb wisconsin personal injury lawyers

Click on a term to search for related topics.