Did any of you actually read what the judge said?
Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums
Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
Did any of you actually read what the judge said?
Yes, and here's the main point of his rulingOriginally Posted by Monky
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26...as-foreseeableU.S. District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson ruled that Cinemark — owner of the Century Aurora 16 theater — could have predicted that movie patrons might be targeted for an attack.
That to me is insane, and expecting such is going to lead to things that would be terrible to see in this country, metal detectors and searches at the entry of every place where people gather, it's not a good thing.
Then the assertion of the gun free zone issue in conjunction with the lawsuits which mostly seem to assert that the theater should have provided better security, lead to the whole right to carry vs private property discussion.
The idea of private property owners being liable for trying to predict and mitigate events that have never happened before is completely absurd. It's as absurd of an assertion that if a terrorist uses a truck bomb to blow up a restaurant, somehow the restaurant owners were responsible for security measures against a truck bomb.
Where does it stop? These kinds of rulings directly produce the things we're discussing here, chicken little signs, metal detectors, searches, etc. due to fear of liability. Look what you have to do to get on an airplane these days, does anyone here really want to see that in front of theaters, grocery stores, restaurants, and shopping malls? Because if private business owners are expected to provide security measures to that extent to avoid liability, that's exactly what we'll see, with the exception that there will be FAR fewer business that can stay in business, and prices will be exponentially higher.
Last edited by XC700116; 08-19-2014 at 13:57.
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.
Last edited by XC700116; 08-19-2014 at 14:53.
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.
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.
You are NOT liable for shoveling your sidewalk in Colorado. I have an entire packet of citation for that. I wanted to start a thread about it, but never got around to it. Someone remind me when I get home and I will. In Colorado, you have NO liability regarding shoveling your sidewalks.
"There are no finger prints under water."
Not comparable to this situation.
"There are no finger prints under water."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote