Judge gives the OK for victims to sue century theater

[Whistler]

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]

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".

[Big E3]

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.

[sniper7]

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.

[Big E3]

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.

[def90]

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..

[Monky]

Did any of you actually read what the judge said?

[XC700116]

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]

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_26...as-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.

[MarkCO]

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."