Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
He's been arrested. Sounds like a total nutjob. "...Reinking went to a local pool in Illinois wearing a pink dress and swam in his underwear while coaxing life guards to fight him."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...lle-police-say
If I'm an attorney, I get with the victims families and file a lawsuit against Waffle House under premises liability law.
They posted signs that their establishment is gun free in accordance with Tennessee law, they now have a responsibility to protect them since they have removed their patrons rights to protect themselves.
They didn't have an armed security guard on hand to protect their patrons. They were negligent and it cost people their lives.
I'd also be sure to hold a bunch of press conferences and make sure the media got ahold of it. Makes things real messy for businesses that pull the no guns allowed stunt.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Suing Waffle House does nothing but make another tort lawyer rich. Anyone who was intent on protecting him/herself shouldn't patronize an establishment that posts those signs.
Far better to collect a listing of all establishments that post said signs and publicize the heck out of the listing so responsible gun owners know where to avoid. If it just so happens that makes said establishments targets for armed criminals ... well ...
wrong. it will set a precedent that companies that forbid their patrons from carrying guns that they can and will be held liable when unarmed patrons are injured or killed due to their anti-gun stances.Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No it wouldn't. A case like that will lose just about every time, because it is an extremely weak argument.
"There are no finger prints under water."
Every time CoGirl303 goes on a “legal” rant, I picture the scene in Cable Guy where Chip Douglas tells Steven he’s going to put the system on trial.
Feedback
It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged. - The Cleveland Press, March 1, 1921, GK Chesterton
Wrong, it would set a further precedent that individuals are not responsible for themselves, and all responsibility falls on business owners and manufacturers of goods.
We DEFINITELY do not want to go there.
Sent from somewhere...
Not only are you completely wrong but I would hate to be in a country where you were right. Property rights are fundamental in this country and have been since its founding. Freedom of choice means we don't have to patronize businesses where we feel unsafe.
Dragging liability lawyers into a situation where someone made a conscious decision to patronize a business only benefits the lawyers. The only situation I can think of where I would condone your proposed tactic is when it involves the government pushing a law or rule forbidding citizens from exercising their rights in order to do something they MUST do while not providing for their security, like declaring gun-free zones then requiring you to enter said zones to pay your taxes, vote, etc.
If you go into a business and fall on a wet floor and no "wet floor" sign is displayed, the business is liable for your injuries.
Removing someone's divine right to protect themselves is no different. They have a duty to ensure a safe environment regardless if the patrons are pro-gun or anti-gun. Their political stance on guns shouldn't be a factor in their safety.
If you come to my apartment and get hurt, I have liability under my homeowners insurance.
I once lived in a college apt complex off campus in Tennessee. They prohibited possession of firearms on the premises. I was reported by a lousy roommate who saw me cleaning my carry weapon. To be honest I only skimmed the contract and didn't realize guns weren't allowed. Apt complex started raising hell, so I contacted an attorney and he looked the lease over and sent me a legal link and told me to demand the apt complex put in security gates with code or badge access and security camera's around the complex and armed security patrolling (of which they had none of that). I forwarded the link and demands to the apt manager. The issue was promptly dropped by the complex and I was told to "keep it on the down low" from then on.
The Broncos and Rockies dont allow carry in their facilities BUT they have armed police on hand, camera's, gated entrances that require tickets or media passes, ie adequate security.
Property owners have a duty under premises liability law.
Waffle House is already terrified of being sued because they just pledged a month's worth of sales to the surviving victims and the families of the deceased. Their actions cost people their lives. Plain and simple.
We argue the concept all the time that had one armed person been inside Parkland or Columbine when they happened, the deaths might have been entirely eliminated or drastically minimized...this isn't any different.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You absolutely cannot argue that Waffle House's actions killed anyone in this instance. Not in good conscience anyway. Your apartment complex example is embarrassing. Rather than follow private property rules, you fake lawyered up to get your way. That is completely petty and the world needs less lawyers like that, not more.
"There are no finger prints under water."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote