View Full Version : Common Sense Prevails in Aurora
Zundfolge
05-19-2016, 13:49
http://www.krdo.com/news/verdict-reached-in-colorado-theater-shooting-civil-trial/39627806
Jury: Cinemark could not have predicted Aurora theater shooting
CENTENNIAL, Colo. - A jury has found the owner of a Colorado movie theater is not liable for a 2012 shooting that left 12 dead after victims argued that lax security allowed for the rampage.
The six jurors concluded Thursday that Cinemark, the nation's third-largest movie theater chain, couldn't have prevented James Holmes' meticulously planned attack.
Several survivors and families of the dead had sued the suburban Denver theater, saying it lacked armed guards during the crowded midnight premiere of a Batman movie. There also was no silent alarm that would have sounded when Holmes slipped into an auditorium and started shooting.
They say Cinemark should have foreseen the possibility of violence at the summer blockbuster.
Cinemark attorneys said guards weren't needed at a theater with no history of serious violence.
This was a junk lawsuit. Losers should have to pay Cinemark's fees.
Zundfolge
05-19-2016, 14:42
If the plaintiffs had taken the tact that the reason Cinemark was culpable was because they forbid concealed carry I might have been sympathetic.
This lawsuit should have never made it to a trial. Glad to see the jury used some common sense.
If the plaintiffs had taken the tact that the reason Cinemark was culpable was because they forbid concealed carry I might have been sympathetic.
My take as well.
JohnTRourke
05-19-2016, 15:46
sorry, i don't buy it
cinemark specifically removed any way for you and others to protect themselves and then failed to do ANYTHING to protect you.
why isn't that at least somewhat their fault????????
and the lesson here is, ain't no one going to protect you, sign or no sign.
Cinemark attorneys said guards weren't needed at a theater with no history of serious violence.
Does this mean that there are now guards at the theater?
If not, I guess the next guy can successfully sue.
sorry, i don't buy it
cinemark specifically removed any way for you and others to protect themselves and then failed to do ANYTHING to protect you.
why isn't that at least somewhat their fault????????
and the lesson here is, ain't no one going to protect you, sign or no sign.
Dangerously flawed logic. The purpose of a movie theater is to shiw movies, not run security detail. Freedom isn't free.
beast556
05-19-2016, 16:41
Good to hear the jury had there heads screwed on right. All this PC and finger pointing shit has to stop.
and the lesson here is, ain't no one going to protect you, sign or no sign.
I thought 'Master of the Obvious' was my responsibility here.
sorry, i don't buy it
cinemark specifically removed any way for you and others to protect themselves and then failed to do ANYTHING to protect you.
why isn't that at least somewhat their fault????????
and the lesson here is, ain't no one going to protect you, sign or no sign.
So with your thinking Remington should be responsible for selling that asshole in Newtown's mom a gun?
This case needed to happen.
A private business/residence should NOT be culpable for acts committed by an unassociated party on said property.
If someone were to break into your home, start murdering you.. and your neighbor stopped it... should you be responsible for the pain and suffering of the criminal?
The attorneys in this case were idiots. First they went with a 6 juror panel, thinking they'd play the numbers.
If the case were to succeed then what? Metal detectors at the movies? Half wit security guards who make $8.50/hr? How's that going to stop a psychopath who planned his night out in such detail he booby trapped his own apartment JUST for more casualties?
A reasonable person would not be able to blame the actions of the psychopath on the movie theatre. Who (other than his shrink, and the LEO who went to talk to him) would be able to say that he would commit a crime like this?
If you base your own personal security based on signs that have no meaning in this state, then you my friend are on the wrong forum.
KevDen2005
05-19-2016, 17:14
This should have never even seen the inside of a court room. Greedy people taking advantage of tragedy to get something they are not owed under the disguise of justice for the dead.
So glad to see the verdict go this way. The jury did not take long to decide.
Would have really set a BS precedent.
JohnTRourke
05-19-2016, 18:26
A private business/residence should NOT be culpable for acts committed by an unassociated party on said property. .
If you run a restaurant, and someone gives you bad food and your customers get sick, is the restaurant owner responsible?
probably not
but what if you run a restaurant and your rules (only wash your hands once a day, for example, or see chipolte operating manual) make people sick, are you responsible?
Definately
so, if you say that people cannot protect themselves on your property and you do NOTHING to take some common sense precautions. (for example metal detectors or a security guard (yeah, i know, stop laughing), then are you at fault?
maybe, maybe not, but you certainly hold at least some negligence for the results. YOUR rules made the possibility happen or made the results worse than they would have been.
Your property, your rules, but if your rules endanger people, then you hold some culpability for the results. That's not unreasonable.
If you (not you personally, just you our hypothetical owner) want to prevent people from their god given right to self defense, Then you should own the results. Why would this be a bad thing?
Every decision has consequences. So far, property owners removing the right of self defense have not been held responsible. Why shouldn't they?
The jury did not take long to decide.
That's what I was suprised to see. They figured this one out QUICK.
Also, IBTL.
I thought 'Master of the Obvious' was my responsibility here.
NO! Antidote for cool is YOUR job! Sheesh, you have one job! Now, your antidote is some serious mojo, I'll give you that, but "master of the obvious" is the domain of the Great Kazoo. I'm surprised he hasn't weighed in.
And while I'm at it...if the LAWYERS had to pay for the time and expense wasted in an effort to extract monies from those actually involved and wronged, much of this would go away on it's own weight, or lack thereof.
Now, having said that, I appreciate the efforts and skills, and education, and experience of my lawyer. But, then, I don't abuse the system. Any more than I have to, for my betterment. And, he does a mean NFA trust. Just sayin'.
NO! Antidote for cool is YOUR job!
No, that's just one of my many socially redeeming qualities. [Coffee]
It has always been my belief that if the theater would not have had "No Guns Allowed" signs posted it would not have happened at that theater. It's my belief that if this verdict would have went the other way it would not have hurt the right to carry cause. In fact it may have effectively caused anybody believing a simple sign makes everybody safe and cause them to rethink that policy going forward. Having said that I not upset with what the verdict is. I can see both sides of this issue having some merits.
If you run a restaurant, and someone gives you bad food and your customers get sick, is the restaurant owner responsible?
probably not
but what if you run a restaurant and your rules (only wash your hands once a day, for example, or see chipolte operating manual) make people sick, are you responsible?
Definately
so, if you say that people cannot protect themselves on your property and you do NOTHING to take some common sense precautions. (for example metal detectors or a security guard (yeah, i know, stop laughing), then are you at fault?
maybe, maybe not, but you certainly hold at least some negligence for the results. YOUR rules made the possibility happen or made the results worse than they would have been.
Your property, your rules, but if your rules endanger people, then you hold some culpability for the results. That's not unreasonable.
If you (not you personally, just you our hypothetical owner) want to prevent people from their god given right to self defense, Then you should own the results. Why would this be a bad thing?
Every decision has consequences. So far, property owners removing the right of self defense have not been held responsible. Why shouldn't they?
A better analogy would be if you were a restaurant owner, and you had a policy where your staff could only wash their hands once a day, and someone came in the back door of the restaurant and murdered a bunch of your patrons. Are you responsible for the deaths of your patrons?
If you run a restaurant, and someone gives you bad food and your customers get sick, is the restaurant owner responsible?
probably not
but what if you run a restaurant and your rules (only wash your hands once a day, for example, or see chipolte operating manual) make people sick, are you responsible?
Definately
so, if you say that people cannot protect themselves on your property and you do NOTHING to take some common sense precautions. (for example metal detectors or a security guard (yeah, i know, stop laughing), then are you at fault?
maybe, maybe not, but you certainly hold at least some negligence for the results. YOUR rules made the possibility happen or made the results worse than they would have been.
Your property, your rules, but if your rules endanger people, then you hold some culpability for the results. That's not unreasonable.
If you (not you personally, just you our hypothetical owner) want to prevent people from their god given right to self defense, Then you should own the results. Why would this be a bad thing?
Every decision has consequences. So far, property owners removing the right of self defense have not been held responsible. Why shouldn't they?
There is no common sense in the law...
If you run a restaurant and someone gives you bad food, you are not liable. They (the CDC) actually investigate the entire movement to pinpoint the source. I have first hand knowledge of their investigation so I know they actually do it. (cucumbers infected with salmonella, contaminated in their first trip from the farm at a transfer facility that the transport vessel was not properly sterilized after transporting livestock) Now if you violate health code and tell your people to NOT wash their hands, then yes.. you are responsible. The theatre did not tell anyone to leave their guns in the car. It did not say we have security to protect you. They asked if you wanted extra butter on your popcorn and to please turn off your cell phones.
Folks here who carry (I know I'm one of them) do so to defend themselves. Do they make decisions when they see the meaningless signs? Yes.. It's either going to be concealed is concealed and fuck your sign, or I'm voting with my wallet. If you're on my property defend yourself all you want, I don't have any signs up. Now if you don't want to defend yourself and your wife kicks in the door and starts stabbing you because she found your 'My Little Pony' porn collection.. I have ZERO requirement to defend you. No law states that I have to stop the commission of a crime.. was my door locked yes.. did your wife kick it in yes.. was the exit door at the theatre closed, only able to unlock from using the push bar? Did the psychopath prop it open with the intent to commit horrendous crimes.. yes.. were the sheep there oblivious? Obviously..
Their actions in securing the facility, in stating 'no guns allowed', are a reasonable and prudent measures to ensure that their patrons were safe from harm. This isn't a club on colfax that has gang fights as a daily and has to hire security and purchase metal detectors. It's a relatively safe (assumption from sheeps) environment to attend.
Their rules do not endanger society. Their rules, in a civilized society, sans murdering psychopaths have no consequences. It's not about the signs that they have posted, or the lack of security. This lawsuit was all about the families involved being led to believe that someone owed them money for a tragedy. Obviously, they could not go after said psychopath because there is nothing to gain there. Let's go after the large corporation who honestly did nothing wrong, without a psychopath having done it.
This wasn't about the theatre not protecting the patrons.. this was about money plain and simple. SCOTUS has affirmed that it is not the job of law enforcement to protect the people, so why should a corporation be held liable? When the people given the authority to enforce laws, to arrest.. are not required to protect?
The case had no merit, it had no substance.. There is not one law anywhere stating that it is the duty of a property to protect patrons. To use something always brought up.. it's like suing Ford for a drunk driver that hit you and was driving a ford.. without the actions of the drunk driver, without the actions of a psychopath we would not be here.
The right to defend yourself starts and stops with the individual. It is YOUR decision whether or not you want to be in public.
If the plaintiffs had taken the tact that the reason Cinemark was culpable was because they forbid concealed carry I might have been sympathetic.
My take as well.
Mine too.
milwaukeeshaker
05-20-2016, 07:51
And the lesson here is PROTECT YOURSELF, don't rely on a sign, or
others to do it for you
sorry, i don't buy it
cinemark specifically removed any way for you and others to protect themselves and then failed to do ANYTHING to protect you.
why isn't that at least somewhat their fault????????
and the lesson here is, ain't no one going to protect you, sign or no sign.
.455_Hunter
05-20-2016, 11:39
It has always been my belief that if the theater would not have had "No Guns Allowed" signs posted it would not have happened at that theater.
All major theater chains in CO- Century, Regal, AMC, etc have "no weapons" policies, whether they post a gun buster sticker on the door or not. Probably 90% of regular carriers here in CO ignore those stupid signs anyway, so Holmes was really just as likely to run intro an armed victim at the Aurora Town Center Theater as another location nearby.
He liked the Century because of the arrangement of the theaters/emergency exit doors/back parking lot allowed him to preposition his car and equipment right outside for easy and undetected access.
Whether he knew it or not, the real reason way Holmes was likely to face no resistance is that the population of citizens who actively carry a concealed weapon and the population of citizens who have the desire and ability to attend the midnight premier of a blockbuster film on a Thursday have very few common members. He he tried the same thing on Saturday night, the chances of a legally armed patron would have been greater (but still not high). Given the location and clientele , he could easy been fired upon by an illegally carried weapon as well.
Back to the liability topic...
Maybe I am wrong, but I thought I read that the Aurora Town Center theater hired off-duty LEO for security the previous weekend (Fri/Sat nights), but did see the need for them on a Thursday, even thought the premier would have just as many or more patrons. That would raise some sort of legal liability red flag- "So Mr. Theater Manager, you thought it was important enough to have security present for patrons attending late night movies on the weekend, but not for similar patrons during the week? Please explain..."
This should have never even seen the inside of a court room. Greedy people taking advantage of tragedy to get something they are not owed under the disguise of justice for the dead.
Bravo! Well said.
jhood001
05-20-2016, 17:48
Whether he knew it or not, the real reason way Holmes was likely to face no resistance is that the population of citizens who actively carry a concealed weapon and the population of citizens who have the desire and ability to attend the midnight premier of a blockbuster film on a Thursday have very few common members.
Good point.
GilpinGuy
05-20-2016, 21:57
Nobody is forced to go into any theater. It's your choice to go in, despite it being a "gun free zone". If you choose to go in, you take that risk voluntarily. There's no way the theater is reaponsible here IMO.
Nobody is forced to go into any theater. It's your choice to go in, despite it being a "gun free zone". If you choose to go in, you take that risk voluntarily. There's no way the theater is reaponsible here IMO.
This.
But as someone else pointed out, I'd love to see Cinemark go after the folks for legal fees. But they won't because of all the negative publicity from the folks that will whine that they are being made victims a second time.
O2
theGinsue
05-21-2016, 10:06
I thought CO had a law that required a losing plaintiff to pay the legal fees of the defendant in civil cases. Is this not correct?
BPTactical
05-22-2016, 18:06
The thing I would like to see- if a business makes the decision to forbid CCW on their property, then they should be bound to be responsible for the safety/security of their patrons.
The thing I would like to see- if a business makes the decision to forbid CCW on their property, then they should be bound to be responsible for the safety/security of their patrons.
Why? I hate to even type this, but guns aren't always the answer, or the only answer.
KevDen2005
05-22-2016, 18:50
Why? I hate to even type this, but guns aren't always the answer, or the only answer.
Gotta agree with you bud, we can't punish people for exercising their rights no matter what side they are on
BPTactical
05-22-2016, 19:13
Why? I hate to even type this, but guns aren't always the answer, or the only answer.
So getting on your knees and pleading "Please don't, can't we just get along" with a James Holmes character is the solution?
Fuck that.
Wake up, the most vicious and cruel animal in the world is a human bent on causing harm to others.
And when an establishment denies individuals the means of protecting themselves then dammit, they should assume that obligation.
hurley842002
05-22-2016, 19:18
So getting on your knees and pleading "Please don't, can't we just get along" with a James Holmes character is the solution?
Fuck that.
Wake up, the most vicious and cruel animal in the world is a human bent on causing harm to others.
And when an establishment denies individuals the means of protecting themselves then dammit, they should assume that obligation.
I agree with you up until the point where you have a choice to visit said establishment.
Just because you don't have a gun, doesn't mean you automatically lay down. What about the people who don't carry a gun. Who would they sue? The segment of the population that carries a gun is small. Most people go their entire lives without carrying a gun. It wouldn't make sense to enact a law for such a small percentage of the population.
KevDen2005
05-22-2016, 19:46
Just because you don't have a gun, doesn't mean you automatically lay down. What about the people who don't carry a gun. Who would they sue? The segment of the population that carries a gun is small. Most people go their entire lives without carrying a gun. It wouldn't make sense to enact a law for such a small percentage of the population.
Ha. You're comment made me literally laugh out loud. The very idea of Democracy versus Republic. However, look at the world we're living in right now, extreme minute percentages of people having laws enacted for them because we are led to believe they are this huge group of people being discriminated against. Don't take this the wrong way, I completely agree with you on this, I just thought the comment was funny being where we are politically in the US right now.
I was going to bring up the recent laws enacted about transgender bathroom use, but this thread is already heated enough and I didn't think it'd go well to liken the even smaller population of transgender....folks, to the ccw population.
KevDen2005
05-22-2016, 20:37
I was going to bring up the recent laws enacted about transgender bathroom use, but this thread is already heated enough and I didn't think it'd go week to liken the even smaller population of transgender....folks, to the ccw population.
Yes, that would definitely get some people fired up...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.