Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
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.The idea of private property owners being liable for trying to predict and mitigate events that have never happened before is completely absurd.
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.Originally Posted by MarkCO
Last edited by XC700116; 08-19-2014 at 14:53.
In my line of work, everything is possible that does not violate one of the 7 physical laws.
Again, people don't seem to understand what is at issue at this stage of the case.
Sayonara
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.
Life's hard when you're stupid
When the government came to take our guns, they knocked on the door. After our guns were gone, they never bothered knocking again - Holocaust Survivor
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.
Nope, if you want to do this, buy the property. It's their property, their rules.
Again,
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote