Lawsuits following mass shootings

[tacman605]

In the wake of several mass shootings lawsuits have been filed by victims and family members alike. Please note this is not about carrying a weapon in posted places or "If just one person was there with a gun" thread.

I found this article in reference to the shootings at the Colorado theater. I understand the general basis for the suit but as I read further I was amused, for the lack of a better word of who they are trying to sue for what.

Here is the link to the article.

In wake of tragedy, lawyers step in: Colorado shooting survivor plans suit, says publicist | The Lookout - Yahoo! News

Here is the part that confused me somewhat.

Brown's attorney Don Karpel told TMZ he plans to sue the Century 16 theater, which is owned by Cinemark, for having an exit door that was not equipped with an alarm or guarded. (Holmes reportedly left the theater through the exit door, propped it open and returned with his weapons.) Karpel also said he may sue Warner Bros for releasing violent movies that may have inspired the shooter, as well as the suspect's doctors, if he had any, for hypothetically not monitoring James Holmes' mental condition properly.

Now if it is shown that the theater was lax in providing a safe enviroment, the door with no alarm, I can understand that but the last ones about suing the movie company for releasing violent movies? Come on. Everyone in that theater was aware of what a Batman movie was about. Of all the hundreds of thousands of people that watched that movie opening night he is claiming that it is the fault of the movie maker that it inspired one person to commit this terrible crime?

In regards to his doctors. The relationship between a doctor and his patient is private. Period. If I am diagnosed with a fatal disease and given two weeks to live should my doctor report it to the authorities and they take away my firearms because I may take revenge on someone? If a mental health professional contacted the authorities in every instance that someone seemed depressed, violent, suicidal or whatever that is all they would be doing.

Other suits that followed this type of event went both ways. The suits following Columbine most if not all were dismissed. They to included a suit to sue the makers of DOOM the video game. Judgements were received against the parents of the shooters and those who assisted them in purchasing weapons.

Virginia Tech families received a bulk settlement which was accepted by all but two of the families. The other two families sued on the basis that authorities were to slow in notifying the area after the first two victims were found. By the time they were notified the rampage had already started.

I feel sympathy for the victims and there families they have suffered a tremendous loss that they may never recover from. If there was a duty of care established and the school, business or whatever failed to meet it then yes they should be liable but to blame a movie or want a doctor to report strange or abnormal behavior. To me that doesn't fly.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[sensei2]

1. people try to sue the (possible) parties with the most money. otherwise, why bother?

2. in many cases like this, the tactic is to throw as many charges against the wall as possible, and hope that some of them stick.

[RoadRunner71]

It doesn't fly around here.

Out in Lala-Land? You never know.

People have been trying to censor "violent" content for years. Folks want to blame something outside of themselves for the offending behavior. This lack of a sense of personal responsibility may very well be the down fall of this nation.

It can't always be some one elses fault.

[OldVet]

How about sueing the guy with the gun. The movie and theater didn't shoot anyone. And some people wonder why lawyers are looked at as the scum of the earth.

[tokerblue]

If they can't win against Warner Brothers, they can always sue Shakespeare. Some of his works are very violent. If that doesn't work, they can try Homer next. Who knows how many evil acts were influenced by The Iliad?

[Doghandler]

I would sue God herself for so arogantly and selfishly imposing her will on this place but the lawyers think I'm nuts and won't take up my case.

[Crowman]

There are some that say if God were indeed a woman there would be no need for weapons.... Just saying......

[Secret Spuk]

If I come into your business, by invitation, if I pay to enter your business I have a reasonable expectation that I will be safe from harm. Be it an active shooter, a fire, falling debris, or any other forseeable event. The active shooter/mass murderer with a gun happens very rarely, so most business pretend it cant happen to them and ignore the possibility. And thats a gamble with the odds greatly in their favor. That theatre gambled, and lost... now they are liable.

I think the bigger argument is how business' will purchase the illusion of security, but never consider the unthinkable. They prepare for the crowd control, and disorderly patrons, but never for the professional, or determined criminal.