Judge gives the OK for victims to sue century theater

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DireWolf

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DireWolf

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DireWolf

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

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...

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XC700116

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc45

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkCO

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.

Ken White at Popehat explains:

http://www.popehat.com/2014/08/22/ca...ht/#more-22641