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.

[Bitter Clinger]

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

[XC700116]

While the idea of it sparks my vindictive side a bit, I can in no way shape or form support such an outright corruption of private property rights (or the lack there of). Nobody is forcing anybody to go to the damn movies, it's a private enterprise, and has the right to make their own rules within their establishment. You, me and anybody else has the right to not go there. This kind of shit is exactly why those signs are popping up left and right. They are not taking away your right to defend yourself, you can easily retain that right by NOT GOING THERE, NOBODY IS FORCING YOU TO GO THERE.

There's become some twisted blend of entitlement of services from others, and deferred responsibility that lends itself to this kind of thing and quite honestly, it's possibly the single biggest driving force behind what is happening to our society. Somehow people think that when they CHOOSE to go on to someone else's property, that someone else is responsible for their safety, they aren't, unless they are forced to go there. And no an employer isn't forcing you to work for them, you can find another fricken job if you don't like their rules. The fact that judges allow this shit to fly, along with all the other BS they do, is sickening. There is only ONE person directly responsible for the Aurora Theater shooting, and it's not the owner of the theater. EVERY SINGLE PERSON in that theater made a choice to go in there (ok maybe not a small child with parents, but that's a whole other can of worms), knowing full well, or not bothering to pay any attention to the fact it was a self proclaimed "gun free zone", nobody forced them to, and nobody but themselves are responsible for that decision. Either they were dumb enough to think that sign made them safe, or figured that once again, the bad guy won't pick me. The individual (in this case the theater goers), are the only ones that can be held responsible for their own safety, if they don't take on that responsibility, then nobody else can do it for them and therefore is not responsible for it.


There's a LONG list of companies and establishments that I don't do business with due to their stance on the gun issue. It is a measured decision on my part, I refuse to support them because of that. Others, I have made a conscious decision to either do business selectively for specific reason, or break their rules and accept the consequences of being confronted by them about it. At the same time it's their right to make the rules on their property and kick my ass off it for not playing by those rules.

[Irving]

XC700116, in real life, businesses have real responsibility for people on their property, whether they were forced to be there or not.

[Bitter Clinger]

But...shouldn't gun owners be a protected group? I also agree with you XC7, property rights should trump, I don't know on this one. I'm torn on which side to go with. The owner of century didn't kill anyone....directly. I am sure ALL of us can agree that gun free zones are stupid. But we DO NOT have to give them our money. But isn't it a fact that 99% of mass shootings occurred in a gun free zone? Where do property rights and the 2A meet?

[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.

[XC700116]

XC700116, in real life, businesses have real responsibility for people on their property, whether they were forced to be there or not.

I get what you're saying, but that responsibility is limited to direct harm or creating an environment that is willfully negligent and putting people into direct risk, however, they can't control others, and can't be expected to protect their patrons from someone who has decided to willfully and directly break laws and harm people. Law enforcement has withstood the EXACT same assertion in court, and been deemed not responsible for peoples direct safety, so how can you expect a private enterprise to be responsible for it?

You can't have your cake and eat it too, you can't have your right to self determination, and expect someone else to do it for you, It's a logical impossibility.

Your assertion "In real life" is a fallacy of reason, just because the idea that a business has responsibility for the total safety of it's patrons has become a generally accepted premise, does not make it true or logical.

The entire point of my rant is basically to point out the absolute hypocrisy of anyone, and many of them are here, that says they want to take responsibility for their safety by going armed, yet foists that responsibility onto someone else, because they want to go see a damned movie, buy the latest shiny object, or eat at a specific restaurant. You can't have it both ways.