View Full Version : Judge gives the OK for victims to sue century theater
Bitter Clinger
08-19-2014, 09:06
http://concealednation.org/2014/08/judge-gives-the-ok-for-suits-to-begin-against-movie-theater-in-the-aurora-colorado-shooting-case/
A judge says “proceed” to suits against the owner (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26346801/federal-judge-rules-aurora-theater-shooting-was-foreseeable) of the movie theater where the mass shooting in Aurora CO occurred in 2012.
“Although theaters had theretofore been spared a mass shooting incident, the patrons of a movie theater are, perhaps even more than students in a school or shoppers in a mall, ‘sitting ducks,’ ” [Judge] Jackson wrote.
This means that 20 lawsuits can now proceed against the theater owner. Does this make any sense to you? How could they have possibly known that an incident like this was going to occur? It is not the responsibility of an establishment to ensure the safety of it’s patrons in that manner. An event, such as a mass shooting, comes down to the individual’s ability to defend his or her self (or if you prefer, cower in the corner).
This particular theater chain claimed itself to be a Gun Free Zone (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/07/robert-farago/cinemark-theaters-no-legal-firearms-allowed/). If anything, these lawsuits may make other businesses take a closer look at their own gun free policies.
But in the end, they are all businesses that can say “we don’t want guns in our buildings” and that is their right. The important thing to take away from all of this is something we’ve been talking about for years:
If a business won’t allow me to carry in their establishment, I will take my business elsewhere (http://concealednation.org/2014/08/cards-to-give-to-your-favorite-gun-free-zone/).
My thoughts, good. Although I HATE the litigious nature of our society, this type of business owner needs to realize there are REAL consequences for being a hoplophobe. I feel, if you will not allow me to protect myself and loved ones in your establishment, then YOU need to provide armed security.
KestrelBike
08-19-2014, 09:12
Here's the jackhole. Surprise, surprise. Nominated by one barry sotero. http://www.denverpost.com/ci_16208068
48587
My thoughts, good. Although I HATE the litigious nature of our society, this type of business owner needs to realize there are REAL consequences for being a hoplophobe. I feel, if you will not allow me to protect myself and loved ones in your establishment, then YOU need to provide armed security.
Yup. When there is consequences for stripping people of their rights, maybe less company's will be so quick to jump on the "no guns" bandwagon.
I'm for this lawsuit, I hope Century goes out of business because they are indirectly responsible for those murders.
If the business is going to deny people the right to be secure in their person then the business must assume they are a target due to their anti-gun policies and they must assume the responsibility for the safety of their customers. I would expect this business to have to raise prices in order to do provide security which will cause them to go out of business (good!) because people can buy the same products for less elsewhere.
Security is something the government and anti-gunners don't want to provide, security is lip service for them. If you're going to remove a person's right to defend themselves then you assume the responsibility for their safety. The government and the anti-gunners do not want us to be safe, they just want to feel good.
Bitter Clinger
08-19-2014, 09:46
Roberth....well said, that's what I was trying to say.
XC700116
08-19-2014, 09:51
While the idea of it sparks my vindictive side a bit, I can in no way shape or form support such an outright corruption of private property rights (or the lack there of). Nobody is forcing anybody to go to the damn movies, it's a private enterprise, and has the right to make their own rules within their establishment. You, me and anybody else has the right to not go there. This kind of shit is exactly why those signs are popping up left and right. They are not taking away your right to defend yourself, you can easily retain that right by NOT GOING THERE, NOBODY IS FORCING YOU TO GO THERE.
There's become some twisted blend of entitlement of services from others, and deferred responsibility that lends itself to this kind of thing and quite honestly, it's possibly the single biggest driving force behind what is happening to our society. Somehow people think that when they CHOOSE to go on to someone else's property, that someone else is responsible for their safety, they aren't, unless they are forced to go there. And no an employer isn't forcing you to work for them, you can find another fricken job if you don't like their rules. The fact that judges allow this shit to fly, along with all the other BS they do, is sickening. There is only ONE person directly responsible for the Aurora Theater shooting, and it's not the owner of the theater. EVERY SINGLE PERSON in that theater made a choice to go in there (ok maybe not a small child with parents, but that's a whole other can of worms), knowing full well, or not bothering to pay any attention to the fact it was a self proclaimed "gun free zone", nobody forced them to, and nobody but themselves are responsible for that decision. Either they were dumb enough to think that sign made them safe, or figured that once again, the bad guy won't pick me. The individual (in this case the theater goers), are the only ones that can be held responsible for their own safety, if they don't take on that responsibility, then nobody else can do it for them and therefore is not responsible for it.
There's a LONG list of companies and establishments that I don't do business with due to their stance on the gun issue. It is a measured decision on my part, I refuse to support them because of that. Others, I have made a conscious decision to either do business selectively for specific reason, or break their rules and accept the consequences of being confronted by them about it. At the same time it's their right to make the rules on their property and kick my ass off it for not playing by those rules.
XC700116, in real life, businesses have real responsibility for people on their property, whether they were forced to be there or not.
Bitter Clinger
08-19-2014, 10:10
But...shouldn't gun owners be a protected group? I also agree with you XC7, property rights should trump, I don't know on this one. I'm torn on which side to go with. The owner of century didn't kill anyone....directly. I am sure ALL of us can agree that gun free zones are stupid. But we DO NOT have to give them our money. But isn't it a fact that 99% of mass shootings occurred in a gun free zone? Where do property rights and the 2A meet?
Aloha_Shooter
08-19-2014, 10:10
I'm for this lawsuit, I hope Century goes out of business because they are indirectly responsible for those murders.
No, lawsuits are not the way to make any progress. All this does is enrich some trial lawyers. Century and Cinemark have every right to impose reasonable conditions for use of their facilities and services; we as consumers have every right to seek other establishments (like Regal/Hollywood) that don't impose conditions we don't like.
If you want to get Century's attention, get 50,000 people to write them saying they would love to attend movie X at the nearby Century theater but are instead driving 10 miles out of their way to go to a competitor because of unreasonable policy Y. Without linking a drop in business to the unreasonable policy, all they have to go on is the business drop. That could be because the movie sucked, the employees at that particular theater are obnoxious, etc.
I'd go with the lawsuit if it was an involuntary activity that disarmed me like going to work but I have options even when it comes to work. My employer may not like guns in the workplace but I can always change jobs and employers if having my gun on me is more important than the drop in pay or benefits.
XC700116
08-19-2014, 10:20
XC700116, in real life, businesses have real responsibility for people on their property, whether they were forced to be there or not.
I get what you're saying, but that responsibility is limited to direct harm or creating an environment that is willfully negligent and putting people into direct risk, however, they can't control others, and can't be expected to protect their patrons from someone who has decided to willfully and directly break laws and harm people. Law enforcement has withstood the EXACT same assertion in court, and been deemed not responsible for peoples direct safety, so how can you expect a private enterprise to be responsible for it?
You can't have your cake and eat it too, you can't have your right to self determination, and expect someone else to do it for you, It's a logical impossibility.
Your assertion "In real life" is a fallacy of reason, just because the idea that a business has responsibility for the total safety of it's patrons has become a generally accepted premise, does not make it true or logical.
The entire point of my rant is basically to point out the absolute hypocrisy of anyone, and many of them are here, that says they want to take responsibility for their safety by going armed, yet foists that responsibility onto someone else, because they want to go see a damned movie, buy the latest shiny object, or eat at a specific restaurant. You can't have it both ways.
Zundfolge
08-19-2014, 10:29
I'm all for the law suit if its built around the idea that the policy of disarming the law abiding patrons is the root of the problem ... however I don't think that's the way its going to go. We're going to end up with metal detectors and mall ninjas at movie theaters after all is said and done.
Rucker61
08-19-2014, 10:49
"could have reasonably enough foreseen the danger of such an attack to be held liable for it, a federal judge ruled Friday." This is what I disagree with. Mass shootings of randomly chosen victims are so rare as to be unforeseeable. How many showings of how many movies in how many days in how many theaters across this country have there been without a mass shooting? One over that number in no way resembles a probability that can be reasonably foreseen.
Roberth....well said, that's what I was trying to say.
Thank you. [Beer]
No, lawsuits are not the way to make any progress. All this does is enrich some trial lawyers. Century and Cinemark have every right to impose reasonable conditions for use of their facilities and services; we as consumers have every right to seek other establishments (like Regal/Hollywood) that don't impose conditions we don't like.
If you want to get Century's attention, get 50,000 people to write them saying they would love to attend movie X at the nearby Century theater but are instead driving 10 miles out of their way to go to a competitor because of unreasonable policy Y. Without linking a drop in business to the unreasonable policy, all they have to go on is the business drop. That could be because the movie sucked, the employees at that particular theater are obnoxious, etc.
I'd go with the lawsuit if it was an involuntary activity that disarmed me like going to work but I have options even when it comes to work. My employer may not like guns in the workplace but I can always change jobs and employers if having my gun on me is more important than the drop in pay or benefits.
I like your idea better, lawsuits are another tool to use though and we should use every means possible to hold businesses accountable for their action/inaction.
XC700116, I agree with you. If I were on the jury, there is no easy I'd assign responsibility to the movie theater, for exactly the reasons you stayed. Someone was willfully negligent, the movie theater could not reasonably forsee the event, and had no opportunity to know ahead of time. That doesn't protect them from a lawsuit though; they'll just have to prove their case. I think this whole thing will end up boiling down to the exit for being used as an entrance.
XC700116
08-19-2014, 10:55
But...shouldn't gun owners be a protected group? I also agree with you XC7, property rights should trump, I don't know on this one. I'm torn on which side to go with. The owner of century didn't kill anyone....directly. I am sure ALL of us can agree that gun free zones are stupid. But we DO NOT have to give them our money. But isn't it a fact that 99% of mass shootings occurred in a gun free zone? Where do property rights and the 2A meet?
Absolutely, that's why I avoid them like the plague. Property rights and 2A rights meet at your decisions where you want to go, and what if anything you are willing to give up to go there, nowhere else. The only one in my mind that is legally responsible for these things outside of the actual perpetrator, is the government, that has willfully taken away rights to self defense via laws of restriction. Outside of that, it's completely up to your own decision.
As to gun owners being a protected group, I honestly don't believe there should be any "protected groups" and expecting that protection outside of expecting that my rights are not infringed upon by the government, IMO, is asking for special rights and privileges over and above what our system was supposed to protect. That's not to say it hasn't happened and isn't happening, it absolutely is, it's to say that it's wrong.
It's essentially the same assertion as the recent lawsuit that has now forced a bakery to provide a wedding cake for a gay wedding. That's wrong on so many levels it's sickening to me. They have no right to demand services from a private enterprise. I have no problems with gays getting married (I honestly believe the govt should have no say whatsoever in who marries who as long as all involved are consenting adults), but I have a real problem with them using their "protected status" to force someone into providing a service to them that doesn't want to, no matter what the reason is.
The phrase "Your freedom to be you, includes my freedom to be free from you" comes to mind.
There's a hell of a lot of things our society has come to think of as "rights" that aren't and that has unfortunately clouded the issue when it comes to people/the govt infringing those rights. Like the people that think they have a right to not be offended, or have their feelings hurt. In reality, it's pretty damned hard for an individual to infringe upon another individual's rights without committing some other major crime in the process.
For example, how are you going to take away my rights of free speech without physically shutting me up? There's a difference between that and refusing to provide the service of a platform to express my free speech, such as this internet forum, which is a privately owned property, in which the owners have extended the privilege of a platform to it's members, in exchange for following the rules, and contributing to the community. In the case of 2A rights, it's pretty hard to take away that right as an individual without committing theft, not allowing you to exercise that right on my private property is completely different.
XC700116
08-19-2014, 10:56
No, lawsuits are not the way to make any progress. All this does is enrich some trial lawyers. Century and Cinemark have every right to impose reasonable conditions for use of their facilities and services; we as consumers have every right to seek other establishments (like Regal/Hollywood) that don't impose conditions we don't like.
If you want to get Century's attention, get 50,000 people to write them saying they would love to attend movie X at the nearby Century theater but are instead driving 10 miles out of their way to go to a competitor because of unreasonable policy Y. Without linking a drop in business to the unreasonable policy, all they have to go on is the business drop. That could be because the movie sucked, the employees at that particular theater are obnoxious, etc.
I'd go with the lawsuit if it was an involuntary activity that disarmed me like going to work but I have options even when it comes to work. My employer may not like guns in the workplace but I can always change jobs and employers if having my gun on me is more important than the drop in pay or benefits.
BINGO
I like your idea better, lawsuits are another tool to use though and we should use every means possible to hold businesses accountable for their action/inaction.
Except no one is suing for rights, just for money that they frankly do not deserve. Tragedy doesn't mean victims are owed. People may donate, and that is great, and helpful, but people aren't OWED anything.
Except no one is suing for rights, just for money that they frankly do not deserve. Tragedy doesn't mean victims are owed. People may donate, and that is great, and helpful, but people aren't OWED anything.
Good point. Maybe I'm making the false assumption that Century will link their denial of the right to protect oneself to the giant payout they'll have to make if they lose the case.
This was the one theater that did not add security for the midnight showing in the metro area. I know several guys that worked the other theaters, most in uniform and a few not. Just sayin'. A major concern was recording the films for illegal distribution more than the thought of the type of tragedy that happened.
XC700116
08-19-2014, 11:11
XC700116, I agree with you. If I were on the jury, there is no easy I'd assign responsibility to the movie theater, for exactly the reasons you stayed. Someone was willfully negligent, the movie theater could not reasonably forsee the event, and had no opportunity to know ahead of time. That doesn't protect them from a lawsuit though; they'll just have to prove their case. I think this whole thing will end up boiling down to the exit for being used as an entrance.
Possibly, but the only thing I can think of on the exit that may even remotely be a consideration is that it apparently wasn't an alarmed exit, ie able to use it without bringing a lot of attention to it's use. That is IMO about the only thing that could be considered an oversight by the theater, and it's pretty weak IMO. Part of my point revolves around the fact that Rucker pointed out, and you mention here, that it's unreasonable to foresee and therefore protect against such an event, and this Judge did a HUGE disservice by allowing this lawsuit to move forward. That's not to say that he did anything that hasn't unfortunately become common place and expected in today's society.
Along with that, supporting such a lawsuit in general terms as a pro 2A point, is a fallacy of logic as I've previously pointed out.
Our justice system has become another self feeding and self supporting monster of bureaucracy. Decisions like this, by judges like this, only serve to feed that bureaucracy and litigation lawyers at the expense of the victims, both the theater and the patrons.
spqrzilla
08-19-2014, 11:16
At this stage, the judge is ruling on whether or not the allegations - assumed to be true - would suffice to state a valid cause of action. So if the complaint alleges that the theater should have realized that there was a risk of attack, the judge has to assume that's true.
Not sure that there was really another choice here for the judge.
Hope the people get paid. If I get told I can't defend myself I expect someone else to. If I don't get defended, I should get to sue them for their failure. That is what lawsuits are about....failures, and this was a massive one on many levels.
XC700116
08-19-2014, 11:51
Hope the people get paid. If I get told I can't defend myself I expect someone else to. If I don't get defended, I should get to sue them for their failure. That is what lawsuits are about....failures, and this was a massive one on many levels.
Except that, in this case, going to a theater that someone else owns and doesn't allow you to carry a gun, is YOUR decision, and by doing so YOU have decided to not do so with your tool for defending yourself. By making that decision, you have no right to expect that they will do it for you.
You have other options, you can decide not to go, to go to a theater that provides security, or to go to a theater that allows you to carry a firearm on their property. You also have no right to the services that private entity provides without following their rules and stipulations to providing that service.
Unless that place you are going is a government entity, that you are forced to go to, like say a court house via summons or jury duty, in that case you have every right to expect the governments protection as they are forcing you to be there with threat of law and consequences to not obeying.
I think that most people misinterpret "property rights" to give other individuals or businesses the right to take away our god given right to protect ourselves by simply putting up a sign that says "gun free zone". I believe whatever society allows us to legally do to protect ourselves should not be taken away by anyone with just a feel good sign. Only if they provide security and can "guarantee" no one else will be armed and only then do they have any right to disarm anyone. And by "guarantee" I mean they have now taken on the responsibility for my safety on there premises. This should apply to private and government as well. A business sign should read "no open carry of firearms, only legal concealed carry allowed". This way the people who feel it necessary and have taken the proper steps for personal protection could do so. And no open carry Rambo want to be idiots to scare all the soccer moms, kids and girly men.
On the flip side, IF the judge denied this suit and said "Tough luck, you decided to go to gun free theatre." Maybe more people would understand why gun free zones are bad and understand that bad guys don't care what that neat little sign says.
What about the threat of batman paying you a visit in the middle of the night if you don't watch his movie?
you make excellent points, and I agree with you, especially on choosing whether to partake in that companies services. I also see no gun signs without any disclaimers as an easy way for the lawsuits to succeed. Everything out there any more comes with small print. I don't know what the theaters signs looked like but if there was no fine print with stipulations stating they are not responsible for defense of their patrons but deny people (that obey it...I'm not one of them) the ability to carry for their own self defense, I can see where it opens up lawsuits for damages.
XC700116
08-19-2014, 12:07
I think that most people misinterpret "property rights" to give other individuals or businesses the right to take away our god given right to protect ourselves by simply putting up a sign that says "gun free zone". I believe whatever society allows us to legally do to protect ourselves should not be taken away by anyone with just a feel good sign. Only if they provide security and can "guarantee" no one else will be armed and only then do they have any right to disarm anyone. And by "guarantee" I mean they have now taken on the responsibility for my safety on there premises. This should apply to private and government as well. A business sign should read "no open carry of firearms, only legal concealed carry allowed". This way the people who feel it necessary and have taken the proper steps for personal protection could do so. And no open carry Rambo want to be idiots to scare all the soccer moms, kids and girly men.
Please show me in the constitution anything that backs up what you're asserting here, that one right trumps another. I can show you in the constitution where every one of my assertions have come from.
Keep in mind, I'm not defending their decision or their rules, only their right to make them as they see fit on private property, in which place nobody is forcing anyone to go, if they were forcing you to go there, then yes these rules infringe on your rights. YOU HAVE A CHOICE. And they have a choice as well, they can kick you off their property for ANY reason.
Would you allow someone to come on your property and do something you don't agree with? Even if they have a right to do it on public property or on their property?
SideShow Bob
08-19-2014, 12:10
Just a question, Who is Jude ?
Title check on isle 3 please. [Tooth]
XC700116
08-19-2014, 12:15
What about the threat of batman paying you a visit in the middle of the night if you don't watch his movie?
you make excellent points, and I agree with you, especially on choosing whether to partake in that companies services. I also see no gun signs without any disclaimers as an easy way for the lawsuits to succeed. Everything out there any more comes with small print. I don't know what the theaters signs looked like but if there was no fine print with stipulations stating they are not responsible for defense of their patrons but deny people (that obey it...I'm not one of them) the ability to carry for their own self defense, I can see where it opens up lawsuits for damages.
hahahaha, well then Batman has to defend you.
Seriously though on the fine print thing, that's a contributing factor, as I said before, the legal system is so FUBAR at this point, it is what it is, but that doesn't mean that people of principle should support further degradation and twisting of it. The "fine print" of our world today along with the lawyers that feed it, is the root of the problem. Without it, there would be far fewer "gun free zone" signs as the number 1 driving force behind them is litigation due to an event just like this, and the other ever popular "my feelings were hurt" BS our society has come to embrace. This lawsuit is just another instance of the snake catching it's tail and starting to eat.
Whistler
08-19-2014, 12:24
Absolutely, that's why I avoid them like the plague. Property rights and 2A rights meet at your decisions where you want to go, and what if anything you are willing to give up to go there, nowhere else. The only one in my mind that is legally responsible for these things outside of the actual perpetrator, is the government, that has willfully taken away rights to self defense via laws of restriction. Outside of that, it's completely up to your own decision.
As to gun owners being a protected group, I honestly don't believe there should be any "protected groups" and expecting that protection outside of expecting that my rights are not infringed upon by the government, IMO, is asking for special rights and privileges over and above what our system was supposed to protect. That's not to say it hasn't happened and isn't happening, it absolutely is, it's to say that it's wrong.
It's essentially the same assertion as the recent lawsuit that has now forced a bakery to provide a wedding cake for a gay wedding. That's wrong on so many levels it's sickening to me. They have no right to demand services from a private enterprise. I have no problems with gays getting married (I honestly believe the govt should have no say whatsoever in who marries who as long as all involved are consenting adults), but I have a real problem with them using their "protected status" to force someone into providing a service to them that doesn't want to, no matter what the reason is.
The phrase "Your freedom to be you, includes my freedom to be free from you" comes to mind.
There's a hell of a lot of things our society has come to think of as "rights" that aren't and that has unfortunately clouded the issue when it comes to people/the govt infringing those rights. Like the people that think they have a right to not be offended, or have their feelings hurt. In reality, it's pretty damned hard for an individual to infringe upon another individual's rights without committing some other major crime in the process.
For example, how are you going to take away my rights of free speech without physically shutting me up? There's a difference between that and refusing to provide the service of a platform to express my free speech, such as this internet forum, which is a privately owned property, in which the owners have extended the privilege of a platform to it's members, in exchange for following the rules, and contributing to the community. In the case of 2A rights, it's pretty hard to take away that right as an individual without committing theft, not allowing you to exercise that right on my private property is completely different.
I like this post, quoted for no particular reason.
Aloha_Shooter
08-19-2014, 12:29
One other point. The whole premise of the lawsuit is that someone else -- the government, the theater, the mall, whatever -- is responsible for US. Supporting the lawsuit supports the proposition that we the people are too incapable, too untrustworthy, to take care of ourselves.
EFF that fecal matter. The corporate world shouldn't care about whether I carry, smoke, drink, etc. unless or until it becomes a profit/loss issue for them (e.g., loudly playing obnoxious "music" or refusal to bathe drives away other customers, refusal to wear a tee shirt or footgear violates health code standards, etc.). Government shouldn't care unless it falls within the (hopefully narrowly) prescribed boundaries of governmental authorities and responsibilities.
No one is at fault when random crap happens, like it or lump it. Corporations, towns, etc. shouldn't be held responsible for the acts of a lunatic or evil individual unless they knowingly and substantively aided and abetted that individual's actions (e.g., knowingly gave said individual unrestricted access to high explosives or released a known threat among the public). Unfortunately, today's nanny state mindset encourages people to think SOMEONE must be at fault and it's never the "victim".
I believe the constitution grants certain god given inalienable rights that can not be taken away. Show me in the constitution where it allows any individual the right to remove ones right to self defense. The government can make laws and therefore has that right, individuals do not, even under property rights. I believe self defense to be a god given right unaffected by property rights. By putting up a sign you have only disarmed the law abiding citizens and allowed the lawless to do whatever they want. I say if you put up a sign you must now take additional steps to insure that the words on that sign are followed by everyone, and that you didn't just make personal safety a false myth.
One other point. The whole premise of the lawsuit is that someone else -- the government, the theater, the mall, whatever -- is responsible for US. Supporting the lawsuit supports the proposition that we the people are too incapable, too untrustworthy, to take care of ourselves.
EFF that fecal matter. The corporate world shouldn't care about whether I carry, smoke, drink, etc. unless or until it becomes a profit/loss issue for them (e.g., loudly playing obnoxious "music" or refusal to bathe drives away other customers, refusal to wear a tee shirt or footgear violates health code standards, etc.). Government shouldn't care unless it falls within the (hopefully narrowly) prescribed boundaries of governmental authorities and responsibilities.
I totally ally agree but in our current world businesses believe guns drive people away, and not physical guns, but the stance the company takes on the ability of patrons to have a weapon at the establishment. If liberals don't get their way, they stomp their feet, boycott, Facebook etc. if we don't get our way, we follow the law, we find loopholes and try to do what we will to protect ourselves, or we boycott the business as well. See Starbucks, chik-fil-a, sports stadiums etc.
No one is at fault when random crap happens, like it or lump it. Corporations, towns, etc. shouldn't be held responsible for the acts of a lunatic or evil individual unless they knowingly and substantively aided and abetted that individual's actions (e.g., knowingly gave said individual unrestricted access to high explosives or released a known threat among the public). Unfortunately, today's nanny state mindset encourages people to think SOMEONE must be at fault and it's never the "victim".
People have and and always will seek a source for responsibility, be it their chosen God, an individual, a business, etc. this mentality has and will be forever engrained in human nature just as we seek where we came from, why we die and why things happen.
As you can see it is obvious why this must be settled in court, I don't think anybody here agrees 100% on anything relating to this issue.
Well.. The theater decided that it was going to relieve it's patrons of the right to defend themselves without providing their own security. I'm guessing these suits will either be thrown out because of the posted signs hence movie goers if concerned should have been supplied with the info needed to go elsewhere or that they will be settled out of court.
sent from a soup can and some string..
Did any of you actually read what the judge said?
XC700116
08-19-2014, 13:18
I believe the constitution grants certain god given inalienable rights that can not be taken away. Show me in the constitution where it allows any individual the right to remove ones right to self defense. The government can make laws and therefore has that right, individuals do not, even under property rights. I believe self defense to be a god given right unaffected by property rights. By putting up a sign you have only disarmed the law abiding citizens and allowed the lawless to do whatever they want. I say if you put up a sign you must now take additional steps to insure that the words on that sign are followed by everyone, and that you didn't just make personal safety a false myth.
Exactly my point, the right to property is the same, you cannot remove someone elses right in exercise of yours. You DO NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT, to being on someone elses property against their wishes, ergo, you can be asked to leave for any reason. Hence if they don't want you carrying a gun on their property, you have no right to do so, and can be asked to leave, or charged with trespassing.
By voluntarily going onto someone elses property, they ARE NOT depriving you of rights if they refuse to let you on said property with a firearm. YOU, by voluntary decision make the choice, either go on said private property according to the owners rules, or don't, they aren't, and cannot say you can't own or carry a gun elsewhere, just not on their property.
XC700116
08-19-2014, 13:25
Did any of you actually read what the judge said?
Yes, and here's the main point of his ruling
U.S. District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson ruled that Cinemark — owner of the Century Aurora 16 theater — could have predicted that movie patrons might be targeted for an attack.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26346801/federal-judge-rules-aurora-theater-shooting-was-foreseeable
That to me is insane, and expecting such is going to lead to things that would be terrible to see in this country, metal detectors and searches at the entry of every place where people gather, it's not a good thing.
Then the assertion of the gun free zone issue in conjunction with the lawsuits which mostly seem to assert that the theater should have provided better security, lead to the whole right to carry vs private property discussion.
The idea of private property owners being liable for trying to predict and mitigate events that have never happened before is completely absurd. It's as absurd of an assertion that if a terrorist uses a truck bomb to blow up a restaurant, somehow the restaurant owners were responsible for security measures against a truck bomb.
Where does it stop? These kinds of rulings directly produce the things we're discussing here, chicken little signs, metal detectors, searches, etc. due to fear of liability. Look what you have to do to get on an airplane these days, does anyone here really want to see that in front of theaters, grocery stores, restaurants, and shopping malls? Because if private business owners are expected to provide security measures to that extent to avoid liability, that's exactly what we'll see, with the exception that there will be FAR fewer business that can stay in business, and prices will be exponentially higher.
If you own the property and run a non-essential privately held business, I wholeheartedly agree that you should be able to run it as you see fit. Free Enterprise built this country, and litigation and regulation (both driven by lawyers) are two of the several forces tearing it down. I hesitated on even the word non-essential. However, I can see a Supermarket as the only place to shop in some towns and forcing people to drive a long distance to shop because that owner had a policy they could not abide with. If I own a bakery and don't want to make you a cake, so be it. If I own a theater and don't want you to have a firearm on my property, so be it.
I'd like to see a sign like this though: "Firearms are prohibited on this property. We might have a security guard or police officer at the right place, with good training at the right time. If you are willing to assume that risk, by all means, we welcome your patronage. If not, please leave."
The idea of private property owners being liable for trying to predict and mitigate events that have never happened before is completely absurd.
Not really, if you own a home and have homeowners insurance, they will pay someone who is soliciting on your property if they slip and fall on some ice, even if it has never happened before.
XC700116
08-19-2014, 14:51
Not really, if you own a home and have homeowners insurance, they will pay someone who is soliciting on your property if they slip and fall on some ice, even if it has never happened before.
However, on the broad scale in this country, that has happened MANY times before, and therefore is absolutely foreseeable as a possibility. Mass shootings in a movie theater have not. There has been shootings in theaters before, but all single conflict incidents from what I've seen, ie a fight that spun out of control, or in one case a guy just flipped his wig and shot the guy sitting in front of him and then turned himself in.
In my line of work, everything is possible that does not violate one of the 7 physical laws. :)
spqrzilla
08-19-2014, 15:22
Again, people don't seem to understand what is at issue at this stage of the case.
Whistler
08-19-2014, 15:34
Not really, if you own a home and have homeowners insurance, they will pay someone who is soliciting on your property if they slip and fall on some ice, even if it has never happened before.
Interesting twist. Why are you liable in the one case and not the other? Why should you be liable at all if the solicitor had a "choice" to not enter your property? If property rights trump 2nd Amendment rights due to the element of choice why isn't any sign that communicates that restriction adequate (no solicitors for example)? Why is there an exception for "officials" in execution of their duty, is the right penultimate in priority or do circumstances modify the protections? This is why I hate lawyers and why we need them...
disclosure: I agree with the property rights side of this discussion.
I agree with property rights I just don't believe my right to legal personal protection is a right that can or should be taken away when I enter someone else's property, unless all access to that property is guarded and they have metal detectors to insure everyone complies. Anything I can legally do in the street in front of there property to protect myself should also be legal within there property. This has nothing to do with going there or not going there, putting up a sign that misleads people into a false sense of security is were the issue is at. I have friends that don't want me to bring guns into their house. I have never gone there under the pretense that I am not still responsible for my own protection. If a disgruntled neighbor comes to there house when I'm there an starts blasting away, if I'm injured your can bet my lawyer will be contacting them and there insurance for restitution. Do you think if all grocery stores just put up a sign that said watch for wet slick floors they would have no liability to anyone that slips and falls. Since I have a no soliciting sign any salesman that slips on the ice in my driveway does not have a right to an insurance claim on my policy. If that's the way it works I should just put up a no trespassing sign and cancel the liability on my homeowner policy, save a lot of money.
Aloha_Shooter
08-19-2014, 16:46
I agree with property rights I just don't believe my right to legal personal protection is a right that can or should be taken away when I enter someone else's property, unless all access to that property is guarded and they have metal detectors to insure everyone complies.
[fail] Don't like their rules because you think it endangers you or just pisses you off? Don't enter their property or use their facilities.
Anything I can legally do in the street in front of there property to protect myself should also be legal within there property.
Nope, if you want to do this, buy the property. It's their property, their rules.
This has nothing to do with going there or not going there, putting up a sign that misleads people into a false sense of security is were the issue is at. I have friends that don't want me to bring guns into their house. I have never gone there under the pretense that I am not still responsible for my own protection. If a disgruntled neighbor comes to there house when I'm there an starts blasting away, if I'm injured your can bet my lawyer will be contacting them and there insurance for restitution.
Again, [fail]
It's not your friends' fault that random idiot comes blasting away unless they had reason to believe s/he would do that and didn't warn you. If your lawyer is contacting anyone about restititution, it should be the perp.
This idea that you can impose your own values on someone else's property is something we should be fighting because it's precisely that idea that Liberals use to try to take our rights away.
^ Well said Aloha_Shooter.
Not really, if you own a home and have homeowners insurance, they will pay someone who is soliciting on your property if they slip and fall on some ice, even if it has never happened before.
IF that person can prove that their injuries are due to your negligence or direct actions. You're only required to shovel the sidewalk out in front of your property here.
That would only be if you were on the Jury Ridge, but alas, many on juries do not think that way and have awarded millions of dollars in the same, or similar cases. Even worse if the pizza delivery guy slips. The collective "we" pay a large percentage of our insurance premiums to bogus claims, fraud and aggressive plaintiff attorneys.
The insurance carrier for the theater is trying to figure out cost of litigation, loss of revenue due to exposure and the anticipated costs to settle out of claims/suits made against their insured. They will examine the theater's deductible and their ability to surcharge their premiums for the next several years. A bean counter will decide on the direction of the case, NOT legal precedence, nor real world justice. In essence, the people who will gain the most are the attorneys. To believe anything else is folly.
Not really, if you own a home and have homeowners insurance, they will pay someone who is soliciting on your property if they slip and fall on some ice, even if it has never happened before.
Not comparable to this situation.
IF that person can prove that their injuries are due to your negligence or direct actions. You're only required to shovel the sidewalk out in front of your property here.
You are NOT liable for shoveling your sidewalk in Colorado. I have an entire packet of citation for that. I wanted to start a thread about it, but never got around to it. Someone remind me when I get home and I will. In Colorado, you have NO liability regarding shoveling your sidewalks.
XC700116
08-19-2014, 19:16
In my line of work, everything is possible that does not violate one of the 7 physical laws. :)
hahaha, you've got a point there.
XC700116
08-19-2014, 19:21
Again, people don't seem to understand what is at issue at this stage of the case.
What is at issue in the cases (there's over 20 of them) is if the owner of the theater is liable for damages based on foreseeing and not taking steps to prevent such an event. This judge affirmed that it was foreseeable and therefore there is a possibility of liability, allowing the cases to continue to trial.
That is a positive affirmation by this judge that somehow there's a possibility of liability on the part of the theater owner. That is insane.
To go along with what Markco is saying, the very nature of insurance is to protect against things that are unforseen. You have no realistic way to prevent something that is not foreseeable. Insurance policies are specifically written to exclude events that are foreseeable, as theoretically, those events can be mitigated, if not avoided.
I don't think it's a good idea that they should allow this lawsuit to happen. It's going to open a big can of worms for the future.
sabot_round
08-19-2014, 20:08
I wholeheartedly with a lot o people here (and by the same token disagree with some), but I don't think that suing the places of businesses is the way to go. It is their business and their rules. If you don't like they're rules, you are free to go somewhere else. If the business says no guns...GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!!
I, for one, will not patronize a business that forbids firearms. If a theater, restaurant, etc, will not allow firearms, i will not even entertain the thought of going there and handing out my hard earn money. People have a choice!!
Messing with business, and adding on regulations to have metal detection devices in a theater or to have armed guards (rental cops) on the premises is not gonna change my mind. I don't care how good their popcorn and tacos are, I don't care how cheap their movie is, and I sure don't care how courteous they act. The outcome is gonna be the same...no money!!!!
spqrzilla
08-19-2014, 20:14
What is at issue in the cases (there's over 20 of them) is if the owner of the theater is liable for damages based on foreseeing and not taking steps to prevent such an event. This judge affirmed that it was foreseeable and therefore there is a possibility of liability, allowing the cases to continue to trial.
That is a positive affirmation by this judge that somehow there's a possibility of liability on the part of the theater owner. That is insane.
The plaintiffs still have to actually prove to a jury that the event was foreseeable.
To go along with what Markco is saying, the very nature of insurance is to protect against things that are unforseen. You have no realistic way to prevent something that is not foreseeable. Insurance policies are specifically written to exclude events that are foreseeable, as theoretically, those events can be mitigated, if not avoided.
Further, insurance is, by its very nature, based in a socialist and or liberal philosophy. It seeks to compensate people for the unforeseen by "taxing" the collective. While Military, certain natural, and criminal actions are common exclusions (in the US, the .gov pays though), the level to prove that negligence was criminal is a very high threshold. For instance, I was the expert for the Aspen County Sheriff, then the DA and then the plaintiff in the deaths of the Lofgren's by CO poisoning in Aspen several years ago. If you will recall, the plumber and inspectors were criminally indicted, assumably based on my grand jury testimony. While their actions were negligent, proving the intent of harm to a member of the public was going to be a difficult task for the DA. The DA blew a statute and improperly filled out paperwork which resulted in the judge throwing out the criminal case on technicalities. One by one, over 30 defendants (actually, their insurance companies) paid money to be released from the case. Criminal cases have a burden of proof that is "beyond a reasonable doubt", or, you had better be sure. The civil burden is "more likely than not" so that, as an expert, if there are 2 options, and option 1 carries a 51% probability and option 2 carries a 49% probability, I can actually answer "Yes. Option 1 occurred." That is a little simplistic, but not too far off the way many experts, who will say whatever their client needs, respond.
DireWolf
08-19-2014, 20:37
The plaintiffs still have to actually prove to a jury that the event was foreseeable.
It was absolutely forseeable, the only question was propability of occurance (pretty low).
It seems to me however that many of the arguments here seem to be based on the premise that posession of a firearm on a no-guns property is automatically a violation of the owners property rights, and in my opinion that would only be the case for open carry or accidental exposure, and failure to leave when requested.
No one has the right to deprive anyone else of their natural rights, but they can and should be able to choose who to do business with. Walk in with a rifle or open carry sidearm, and just like with "no shirt/shoes - no service", if the property owner isn't confortable with that, they have every right to ask you to leave.
On the other hand, if that property owner allows me on his premises for any reason (business or otherwise), that still doesnt give them the right to search my pockets/property without violating yet more rights (and that pesky old constitution thingy that keeps getting in the way for some), and just like the contents of my wallet or pockets, as long as it stays there, and there's no xray/detector or law being violated, its none of their damn business what I have on my person.....
Aloha_Shooter
08-19-2014, 23:15
It seems to me however that many of the arguments here seem to be based on the premise that posession of a firearm on a no-guns property is automatically a violation of the owners property rights, and in my opinion that would only be the case for open carry or accidental exposure, and failure to leave when requested.
If the property owner says "no open display of firearms" then yes, open carry would violate his/her rights while concealed carry would not but if s/he simply says "no firearms" then even concealed carry is violating his/her wishes. Realistically, you're not committing a crime until you refuse to leave if/when requested but you ARE violating his/her property rights.
No one has the right to deprive anyone else of their natural rights, but they can and should be able to choose who to do business with. Walk in with a rifle or open carry sidearm, and just like with "no shirt/shoes - no service", if the property owner isn't confortable with that, they have every right to ask you to leave.
They are not depriving us of our rights when presence on that property is completely voluntary, we are choosing to forgo those rights in order to enjoy their facilities.
On the other hand, if that property owner allows me on his premises for any reason (business or otherwise), that still doesnt give them the right to search my pockets/property without violating yet more rights (and that pesky old constitution thingy that keeps getting in the way for some), and just like the contents of my wallet or pockets, as long as it stays there, and there's no xray/detector or law being violated, its none of their damn business what I have on my person.....
Yes, they can't search you without your consent but that doesn't give you carte blanche to carry on their property just because you're concealed.
One of the tenets of Civil Disobedience is being willing to suffer the consequences of your disobedience. I would be willing to suffer the consequences of being asked to leave if I were to (hypothetically speaking) carry concealed at the Cinemark IMAX theater and my pistol was somehow discovered but the fact I was carrying concealed wouldn't mean I wasn't violating their property rights.
DireWolf
08-20-2014, 00:31
They are not depriving us of our rights when presence on that property is completely voluntary, we are choosing to forgo those rights in order to enjoy their facilities.
I would argue the point that my right to ensure that the safety of me and mine are adequately protected is something that cannot be foregone - that defense capability may take many forms, but should never be relinquished in its entirety.
One of the tenets of Civil Disobedience is being willing to suffer the consequences of your disobedience. I would be willing to suffer the consequences of being asked to leave if I were to (hypothetically speaking) carry concealed at the Cinemark IMAX theater and my pistol was somehow discovered but the fact I was carrying concealed wouldn't mean I wasn't violating their property rights.
I agree completely with the first part of this, but would posit that in order to actually violate someone's rights, there needs to be harm (intentional or otherwise) or the intent to cause harm, and I don't know that just carrying something in your possession with no harm caused (or intent) would actually rise to the level of violation of rights, although it may very well get you the boot for violation of rules...
clublights
08-20-2014, 02:02
IF the plaintiffs win this will not go good for Us
Ready to welcome the "MSA" ( TSA's movie theater cousins.... ) ?
Body scanners and pat downs .
Rucker61
08-20-2014, 06:24
What is at issue in the cases (there's over 20 of them) is if the owner of the theater is liable for damages based on foreseeing and not taking steps to prevent such an event. This judge affirmed that it was foreseeable and therefore there is a possibility of liability, allowing the cases to continue to trial.
That is a positive affirmation by this judge that somehow there's a possibility of liability on the part of the theater owner. That is insane.
It's the same thought process that led ex-Senator ex-Senator Morse to include the language in his assault weapon liability bill regarding "the extreme likelihood that an assault weapon would be used to kill or harm someone". It's a complete failure to understand probability for political aims.
When you purchase a ticket to an event on private and or gov't property you are agreeing to the terms of access (upon entry of course) and behaviour associated with that purchase. I believe what the lawsuits will focus on is the theater's lack of providing "adequate" security personnel which, the argument will say, would've prevented or at least limited the consequences of the attack. I'll be very surprised if the issue of allowing patrons to have firearms with them will become a major issue as the lawsuit works it's way through the process. I've been wrong before and I will be again.
XC700116
08-20-2014, 12:09
When you purchase a ticket to an event on private and or gov't property you are agreeing to the terms of access (upon entry of course) and behaviour associated with that purchase. I believe what the lawsuits will focus on is the theater's lack of providing "adequate" security personnel which, the argument will say, would've prevented or at least limited the consequences of the attack. I'll be very surprised if the issue of allowing patrons to have firearms with them will become a major issue as the lawsuit works it's way through the process. I've been wrong before and I will be again.
I tend to agree with you here, I don't think they (plaintiffs attorneys) would want to touch that issue with a ten foot pole in this case. My bet is that they'll stick to the lack of security in the theater, as the goal is to win, not prove a political point.
An attorney who "sticks to lack of security" will lose in a trial. Common man, standard of care in the industry tests will, by and large, show that most theaters lacked enough security to thwart the specific shooter in this case. Several LE articles, re-enactments, re-constructions have already been completed that state this was an outlier, uncommon, and would have been hard to stop.
There is no justice that will be exacted from these suits, just more attorneys putting more money in their pockets.
Mass gatherings of people in condition "white" makes for easy targets. Concerts, Movies, Malls...
XC700116
08-20-2014, 13:34
An attorney who "sticks to lack of security" will lose in a trial. Common man, standard of care in the industry tests will, by and large, show that most theaters lacked enough security to thwart the specific shooter in this case. Several LE articles, re-enactments, re-constructions have already been completed that state this was an outlier, uncommon, and would have been hard to stop.
There is no justice that will be exacted from these suits, just more attorneys putting more money in their pockets.
Mass gatherings of people in condition "white" makes for easy targets. Concerts, Movies, Malls...
Oh, I'm in 100% agreement of that, it's the only real thing that can come of this beyond establishing a possibility of liability for such things to business owners, and that part is pretty doubtful. I find it highly doubtful that any of the victims will see much if any money out of this unless the theater owner and his insurance decide to just cut some checks and settle the cases, and the plaintiffs choose to accept those checks.
spqrzilla
08-22-2014, 20:24
Ken White at Popehat explains:
http://www.popehat.com/2014/08/22/can-you-trust-the-media-to-get-legal-stories-right/#more-22641
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.