Dark Knight Shooting Victims Might Sue Theater Chain

Dark Knight Shooting Victims Might Sue Theater Chain

This is a discussion on Dark Knight Shooting Victims Might Sue Theater Chain within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Possible Lawsuit Over Aurora Movie Shootings Targets Owner « CBS Denver Dang lawyers.......

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19
Like Tree13Likes

Thread: Dark Knight Shooting Victims Might Sue Theater Chain

  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array PEF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,960

    Dark Knight Shooting Victims Might Sue Theater Chain



  2. #2
    VIP Member
    Array msgt/ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    7,642
    I’m surprised they waited this long before starting the lawsuits.
    When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.
    "Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."

  3. #3
    Distinguished Member Array GunGeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,249
    Too bad they'll be suing for the wrong reasons. They should be suing for the "No Guns" sign!
    JayTee and thearmsman like this.

  4. #4
    Ex Member Array Adrenaline's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by From OP's Posted Article

    “The victims here are some of the worst types of injuries that I have seen in over 37 years of practice,” Bern said. “I believe that the primary responsibility at this point rests with Cinemark.”
    Yah, right. The primary responsibility rests with the idiot who murdered and severely wounded the innocent movie goers.
    wmhawth and ccw9mm like this.

  5. #5
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,763
    Probably going to nail them for not having an alarm on the emergency exit door. That would be my best guess.
    Spirit51 likes this.
    Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ

  6. #6
    VIP Member
    Array msgt/ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    7,642
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrenaline View Post
    Yah, right. The primary responsibility rests with the idiot who murdered and severely wounded the innocent movie goers.
    They could sue him but they will get more money from the theater. The deep pockets theory.
    ccw9mm likes this.
    When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.
    "Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."

  7. #7
    Senior Member Array ntkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    681
    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.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Array Happypuppy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Small Town USA
    Posts
    901
    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
    DaGunny likes this.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Array GeorgiaDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,153
    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.
    Last edited by GeorgiaDawg; September 8th, 2012 at 06:01 PM.
    "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

  10. #10
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    9,397
    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.
    PIMking and Spirit51 like this.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  11. #11
    Ex Member Array PIMking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Happypuppy View Post
    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
    exactly, they should be found liable for a lack of proper security. I'm happy for this because the movie theater thought their "no guns" would make everyone safe and didn't have to provide security and massive loss of live happened because of it.

    I hope they get loads of cash

  12. #12
    Ex Member Array PIMking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgiaDawg View Post
    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.
    Then swimming pools shouldnt have life guards, if you pay and chose to go swimming they shouldn't be liable for you drowning right?

  13. #13
    VIP Member
    Array PEF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,960
    Quote Originally Posted by PIMking View Post
    Then swimming pools shouldnt have life guards, if you pay and chose to go swimming they shouldn't be liable for you drowning right?
    Drowning is a foreseeable risk. A freak shooting up a movie theater is not a foreseeable risk. You have a duty of care for "foreseeable risks."

    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.

  14. #14
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,889
    Quote Originally Posted by PEF View Post
    Drowning is a foreseeable risk. A freak shooting up a movie theater is not a foreseeable risk. You have a duty of care for "foreseeable risks."
    Disagree on the classification of "freak," as to the foreseeability of threats.

    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.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  15. #15
    VIP Member
    Array PEF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,960
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Disagree on the classification of "freak," as to the foreseeability of threats.

    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.
    If that is the case, then the gun manufactures should be held liable, as it is "foreseeable" that a person will use the product to kill people.

    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.
    atctimmy likes this.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Sponsored 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
  •