Judge gives the OK for victims to sue century theater

[Zundfolge]

I'm all for the law suit if its built around the idea that the policy of disarming the law abiding patrons is the root of the problem ... however I don't think that's the way its going to go. We're going to end up with metal detectors and mall ninjas at movie theaters after all is said and done.

[Rucker61]

"could have reasonably enough foreseen the danger of such an attack to be held liable for it, a federal judge ruled Friday." This is what I disagree with. Mass shootings of randomly chosen victims are so rare as to be unforeseeable. How many showings of how many movies in how many days in how many theaters across this country have there been without a mass shooting? One over that number in no way resembles a probability that can be reasonably foreseen.

[roberth]

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

Thank you.

[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]

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.

[XC700116]

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?

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.

[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

[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.

[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.