Judge gives the OK for victims to sue century theater

[XC700116]

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.

[Doc45]

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.

[spqrzilla]

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.

[sniper7]

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]

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.

[Big E3]

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.

[XC700116]

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]

Just a question, Who is Jude ?

Title check on isle 3 please.

[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.

[Dave_L]

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.