Judge gives the OK for victims to sue century theater

[Bitter Clinger]

http://concealednation.org/2014/08/j...shooting-case/

A judge says “proceed” to suits against the owner of the movie theater where the mass shooting in Aurora CO occurred in 2012.

“Although theaters had theretofore been spared a mass shooting incident, the patrons of a movie theater are, perhaps even more than students in a school or shoppers in a mall, ‘sitting ducks,’ ” [Judge] Jackson wrote.

This means that 20 lawsuits can now proceed against the theater owner. Does this make any sense to you? How could they have possibly known that an incident like this was going to occur? It is not the responsibility of an establishment to ensure the safety of it’s patrons in that manner. An event, such as a mass shooting, comes down to the individual’s ability to defend his or her self (or if you prefer, cower in the corner).
This particular theater chain claimed itself to be a Gun Free Zone. If anything, these lawsuits may make other businesses take a closer look at their own gun free policies.
But in the end, they are all businesses that can say “we don’t want guns in our buildings” and that is their right. The important thing to take away from all of this is something we’ve been talking about for years:

If a business won’t allow me to carry in their establishment, I will take my business elsewhere.


My thoughts, good. Although I HATE the litigious nature of our society, this type of business owner needs to realize there are REAL consequences for being a hoplophobe. I feel, if you will not allow me to protect myself and loved ones in your establishment, then YOU need to provide armed security.

[KestrelBike]

Here's the jackhole. Surprise, surprise. Nominated by one barry sotero. http://www.denverpost.com/ci_16208068

[Dave_L]

My thoughts, good. Although I HATE the litigious nature of our society, this type of business owner needs to realize there are REAL consequences for being a hoplophobe. I feel, if you will not allow me to protect myself and loved ones in your establishment, then YOU need to provide armed security.

Yup. When there is consequences for stripping people of their rights, maybe less company's will be so quick to jump on the "no guns" bandwagon.

[roberth]

I'm for this lawsuit, I hope Century goes out of business because they are indirectly responsible for those murders.

If the business is going to deny people the right to be secure in their person then the business must assume they are a target due to their anti-gun policies and they must assume the responsibility for the safety of their customers. I would expect this business to have to raise prices in order to do provide security which will cause them to go out of business (good!) because people can buy the same products for less elsewhere.

Security is something the government and anti-gunners don't want to provide, security is lip service for them. If you're going to remove a person's right to defend themselves then you assume the responsibility for their safety. The government and the anti-gunners do not want us to be safe, they just want to feel good.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I'm for this lawsuit, I hope Century goes out of business because they are indirectly responsible for those murders.

No, lawsuits are not the way to make any progress. All this does is enrich some trial lawyers. Century and Cinemark have every right to impose reasonable conditions for use of their facilities and services; we as consumers have every right to seek other establishments (like Regal/Hollywood) that don't impose conditions we don't like.

If you want to get Century's attention, get 50,000 people to write them saying they would love to attend movie X at the nearby Century theater but are instead driving 10 miles out of their way to go to a competitor because of unreasonable policy Y. Without linking a drop in business to the unreasonable policy, all they have to go on is the business drop. That could be because the movie sucked, the employees at that particular theater are obnoxious, etc.

I'd go with the lawsuit if it was an involuntary activity that disarmed me like going to work but I have options even when it comes to work. My employer may not like guns in the workplace but I can always change jobs and employers if having my gun on me is more important than the drop in pay or benefits.

[roberth]

No, lawsuits are not the way to make any progress. All this does is enrich some trial lawyers. Century and Cinemark have every right to impose reasonable conditions for use of their facilities and services; we as consumers have every right to seek other establishments (like Regal/Hollywood) that don't impose conditions we don't like.

If you want to get Century's attention, get 50,000 people to write them saying they would love to attend movie X at the nearby Century theater but are instead driving 10 miles out of their way to go to a competitor because of unreasonable policy Y. Without linking a drop in business to the unreasonable policy, all they have to go on is the business drop. That could be because the movie sucked, the employees at that particular theater are obnoxious, etc.

I'd go with the lawsuit if it was an involuntary activity that disarmed me like going to work but I have options even when it comes to work. My employer may not like guns in the workplace but I can always change jobs and employers if having my gun on me is more important than the drop in pay or benefits.

I like your idea better, lawsuits are another tool to use though and we should use every means possible to hold businesses accountable for their action/inaction.

[Irving]

I like your idea better, lawsuits are another tool to use though and we should use every means possible to hold businesses accountable for their action/inaction.

Except no one is suing for rights, just for money that they frankly do not deserve. Tragedy doesn't mean victims are owed. People may donate, and that is great, and helpful, but people aren't OWED anything.

[roberth]

Except no one is suing for rights, just for money that they frankly do not deserve. Tragedy doesn't mean victims are owed. People may donate, and that is great, and helpful, but people aren't OWED anything.

Good point. Maybe I'm making the false assumption that Century will link their denial of the right to protect oneself to the giant payout they'll have to make if they lose the case.

[XC700116]

No, lawsuits are not the way to make any progress. All this does is enrich some trial lawyers. Century and Cinemark have every right to impose reasonable conditions for use of their facilities and services; we as consumers have every right to seek other establishments (like Regal/Hollywood) that don't impose conditions we don't like.

If you want to get Century's attention, get 50,000 people to write them saying they would love to attend movie X at the nearby Century theater but are instead driving 10 miles out of their way to go to a competitor because of unreasonable policy Y. Without linking a drop in business to the unreasonable policy, all they have to go on is the business drop. That could be because the movie sucked, the employees at that particular theater are obnoxious, etc.

I'd go with the lawsuit if it was an involuntary activity that disarmed me like going to work but I have options even when it comes to work. My employer may not like guns in the workplace but I can always change jobs and employers if having my gun on me is more important than the drop in pay or benefits.

BINGO

[Bitter Clinger]

Roberth....well said, that's what I was trying to say.