I’m surprised they waited this long before starting the lawsuits.
Too bad they'll be suing for the wrong reasons. They should be suing for the "No Guns" sign!
Yah, right. The primary responsibility rests with the idiot who murdered and severely wounded the innocent movie goers.Quote:
Originally Posted by From OP's Posted Article
Probably going to nail them for not having an alarm on the emergency exit door. That would be my best guess.
An armed response is the only to have reduced the list of casualties, I mean we have seen what simple box cutters can do, 911. If bad people are planning horrible violent things, we as an open society have to wait for them to act on it and then put a stop to it ASAP.
It does seem odd that the majority of these events take place in an anti gun environment. I believe the theater was such a place, I could be wrong. But if it was, that is where my base for a lawsuit would come from.
You can put all the restrictions on life that you want, it won’t stop any determined fool from trying it.
Suits of this type have been tried before and sadly have not worked. If you remove a persons personal ability to defend themselves I think there is an obligation to provide security.
Sent via Mental Power
I think this is sad. The theater has no responsibility to provide security to those who voluntarily enter. They could have chosen not to go there if they were not allowed to defend themselves.
While I believe in the rights of property owners, I do feel that if you are offering a service or selling a product to the public, and you take a stance to forbid people the rights authorized by the states, such as lawful carry, then I think there could be a strong argument made for the amount of responsibility you assume therein.
I hope they get loads of cash
There's a risk that a plane may crash into the theater. But because it is unforseeable, the theater need not be built to withstand a direct impact by a 747.
Finally, I guarantee the theory of damages *WILL NOT* be based on not allowing guns into the theater.
In a pool of water, people can drown. In a public space, anyone can enter.
And, in a non-monitored, non-filtered, open environment in which citizens are criminalized for daring to take charge of their own defensive potential, criminals realize that such spaces are "Victim Disarmament Zones" that empower them criminally by erasing the bulk of the threat of failure. If nothing else, the mere fact we ALL KNOW such incidents most often occur in such disarmament zones should be proof enough of the foreseeability.
There are chains of causation. Also, there is "assumption of the risk." If *you know* you cannot bring a gun there, but you choose to go, you have "assumed the risk."
My point - if people want parties to be held liable for their acts (e.g., theater "liable" becasue they did not allow others to arm themselves) then the liability *cannot* be selective. Under that theory, you would also need to support gun manufactures being liable for damages resulting from crimes. Need to be consistent in the liability approach.