Ignatious Piazza offers to fund CCW denial Cinemark lawsuit - Page 4

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; LEOs can't prevent crime, they can only respond once it has been committed. They are there to arrest and apprehend those who break the law, ...

Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 246
Like Tree63Likes

Thread: Ignatious Piazza offers to fund CCW denial Cinemark lawsuit

  1. #46
    Senior Member Array GeorgiaDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,153
    LEOs can't prevent crime, they can only respond once it has been committed. They are there to arrest and apprehend those who break the law, not to prevent the law from being broken. We don't live in the film "Minority Report" just yet, so the police cannot protect us from future crimes. We must protect ourselves.
    glockman10mm likes this.
    "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

    “The purpose of the law is not to prevent a future offense, but to punish the one actually committed” - Ayn Rand


  2. #47
    Ex Member Array barstoolguru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    under a rock in area 51
    Posts
    2,548
    Quote Originally Posted by Harryball View Post
    Not sure they are trying to dodge lawsuits. There is no physical way they can protect us. They protect society as a whole, the individual is on there own. We would need 150,000,000 cops if they were to protect everyone. Thats not going to happen. This is one subject we are going to have to agree to disagree...
    If someone denies my right to defend myself by limiting me to do it myself then they have the responsibility to ensure a safe environment as I posted in #39
    Property owners owe the highest degree of care to invitees to make sure they are safe from dangers on their property

  3. #48
    Ex Member Array barstoolguru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    under a rock in area 51
    Posts
    2,548
    Quote Originally Posted by Harryball View Post
    Not sure they are trying to dodge lawsuits. There is no physical way they can protect us. They protect society as a whole, the individual is on there own. We would need 150,000,000 cops if they were to protect everyone. Thats not going to happen. This is one subject we are going to have to agree to disagree...

    When you get screw ups like this I do believe so. When you PAY for a service it should be rendered or we should be able to refuse to pay
    GeorgiaDawg likes this.

  4. #49
    Ex Member Array Yoda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    2,782
    Unless the law firm works on a contingency basis they must be paid in advance or as the expenses are incurred.

    I am not certain whether the movie goers are invitees or licensees. But the potential for premises liability exists.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #50
    VIP Member Array nedrgr21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    3,641
    I've seen reports that the fire did go off and there were off duty cops present in the theater. The theater can't be held responsible for someone intentionally taking advantage of fire codes (door unlocked from inside) to perpetrate a crime.

  6. #51
    Ex Member Array barstoolguru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    under a rock in area 51
    Posts
    2,548
    Quote Originally Posted by nedrgr21 View Post
    I've seen reports that the fire did go off and there were off duty cops present in the theater. The theater can't be held responsible for someone intentionally taking advantage of fire codes (door unlocked from inside) to perpetrate a crime.
    Can you post the report? So if it did go off why wasn't it checked by an employee? if it went off why would put it down in a law suit saying it didn't; It seems like it would degrade their case by doing so... this article says there wasn't one

    No two ways about it…

    If the exit doors out of the now-infamous Cinemark movieplex in Aurora, Colorado had been equipped with audible alarms, there’s a good chance last week’s movie massacre wouldn’t have gone down as it did.
    Hearne: Movie Theater Exit Doors Should Have Alarms | KC Confidential

  7. #52
    Member Array CBXMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    150
    The theater can't win. If they didn't have the no gun signs up, everyone would be lining up to sue them for allowing the shooter to bring in his guns.

  8. #53
    Ex Member Array barstoolguru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    under a rock in area 51
    Posts
    2,548
    Quote Originally Posted by nedrgr21 View Post
    I've seen reports that the fire did go off and there were off duty cops present in the theater. The theater can't be held responsible for someone intentionally taking advantage of fire codes (door unlocked from inside) to perpetrate a crime.
    Can you post the report? So if it did go off why wasn't it checked by an employee? if it went off why would put it down in a law suit saying it didn't; It seems like it would degrade their case by doing so... this article says there wasn't one and yes they can be held responsible. Read what I posted in #39

    No two ways about it…

    If the exit doors out of the now-infamous Cinemark movieplex in Aurora, Colorado had been equipped with audible alarms, there’s a good chance last week’s movie massacre wouldn’t have gone down as it did.
    Hearne: Movie Theater Exit Doors Should Have Alarms | KC Confidential

    for starters the theater has a major film viewing and at $8-10.00 a ticket X 200 to 300 per seating/movie=$2000-3000 w/o popcorn and soft drink sales... so let’s call it $6000-9000 for one showing (there was more so we can X that by the number of showings) so I can venture to say they were into make some money but chose to skimp on security or a door alarm?

    The theater can't win. If they didn't have the no gun signs up, everyone would be lining up to sue them for allowing the shooter to bring in his guns.

  9. #54
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,882
    @barstoolguru....are you validating the law suit based of off the doors not being alarmed, not enough security, etc..or because "they were denied their rights"? I am still confused on that part.

    I am a skydiving instructor. I do not allow people to carry when we jump (tandem of instruction). If we landed and some BG held us up and shot my student in the leg should I be sued because 1: I did not allow the person to carry and 2: we landed on a dropzone not on an airfield (which has security) but on farmland which I have permission to use? It is the same thing is it not? I am not providing them enough security and not allowing them to carry a weapon. This is not hypothetical. That is what I did in New England.

  10. #55
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,085
    Quote Originally Posted by barstoolguru View Post
    Can you post the report? So if it did go off why wasn't it checked by an employee? if it went off why would put it down in a law suit saying it didn't; It seems like it would degrade their case by doing so... this article says there wasn't one and yes they can be held responsible. Read what I posted in #39



    Hearne: Movie Theater Exit Doors Should Have Alarms | KC Confidential
    You are seriously endorsing one of the worst forms of parasite-feeding in this country. It is NOT the theater's fault that some psychopath went in there and shot it up. There was no way they were going to magically read his mind and be able to stop that dude, which is pretty much what it would've taken, and turning around and committing blatant theft through frivolous lawsuits just compounds the injustice of this whole situation.

  11. #56
    Ex Member Array barstoolguru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    under a rock in area 51
    Posts
    2,548
    let’s compare apple to apples and not drift off the subject. I am not supporting lawsuits of any kind but looking at the facts and they are that this gun site owner (igna. piazza) is saying he will pay the freight on a lawsuit if it is filed in a certain manner and I can only assume by what he does and believes in that it would be the denial of the right to protect themselves by being denied the right to carry.

    Now there are some 70 victims so the chances are that none of them have a CCP but he gets big time attention for making the offer. I have not suffered pain or loss from this but I like to think that the ones that do can recoup losses like the ability to earn for your family. The medical bill from something like this can bankrupt someone, was it there fault this guy had access to the theater through a fire door... no so why should they shoulder the burden.

    Cinemark has a responsibility to ensure a REASONABLE amount of security. now if this guy was forced to use the front door would it have been as bad? Chances are no. If someone had their gun and was allow to carry in the theater would it have made a difference... no one will ever tell.

    For the price of an alarm for fire doors (350.00 per door +install) they might have saved the embarrassment of something like this. Sounds like a money saving issue to me. When I buy a ticket to your show/movie I expect a reasonable amount of security and safety no matter who provides it.

  12. #57
    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
    @barstoolguru....are you validating the law suit based of off the doors not being alarmed, not enough security, etc..or because "they were denied their rights"? I am still confused on that part.

    I am a skydiving instructor. I do not allow people to carry when we jump (tandem of instruction). If we landed and some BG held us up and shot my student in the leg should I be sued because 1: I did not allow the person to carry and 2: we landed on a dropzone not on an airfield (which has security) but on farmland which I have permission to use? It is the same thing is it not? I am not providing them enough security and not allowing them to carry a weapon. This is not hypothetical. That is what I did in New England.
    you sit here and talk about gun rights and the right to carry but you deny someone else the right to carry... makes me wonder?

  13. #58
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,882
    Quote Originally Posted by barstoolguru View Post
    you sit here and talk about gun rights and the right to carry but you deny someone else the right to carry... makes me wonder?
    Don't wonder, I am a big boy...speak your mind...Besides, you have a great way of not answering questions.

    Same thing anyway...I am not denying them anything..they can go find a qualified instructor elsewhere. If one chooses something then they are not denied anything.

    BTW: I don't allow cussing in my house nor using the Lords name in vain. So I must be opposed to the 1st Amendment also

  14. #59
    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
    Don't wonder, I am a big boy...speak your mind...Besides, you have a great way of not answering questions.

    Same thing anyway...I am not denying them anything..they can go find a qualified instructor elsewhere. If one chooses something then they are not denied anything.
    Then what is it when a CO or person says NO, you can't bring a gun even though you are lic to carry. even though you went through all the background checks and had a safety course but we don't provide you any security.
    Last edited by barstoolguru; July 28th, 2012 at 09:39 PM. Reason: corrected- not a personal attack

  15. #60
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,882
    Quote Originally Posted by barstoolguru View Post
    You are sounding like Cinemark now... Aaaa but you are when you are telling them they can't carry BECAUSE of what you believe is necessary… denying them there 2A rights... am I the only one seeing this?
    Don't make this personal. Answer the question or PM me if you have issues with my policies. If you prefer start a new thread about me....But try to answer a simple question if you can.

Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast

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.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors