Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jesus warned us that the love of money was the root of all evil.
Since the victims themselves were murdered in the shooting, the close family member would be eligible for Life Insurance settlements, that should have been enough.
If the victims, no life insurance yet, that was the victim's family members' fault, and can not be the fault of the movie theater.
This was a random terrible, violent act. The family members should have been wise enough to understand that, and *not* have gone after the movie theater. I think they should pay up.
Always going after the "deep pockets" 'ya know...
Jesus did not say that. Apostle Paul did in his letter to Timothy. Jesus was already in Heaven by the time Paul wrote that.
When we lived in Colorado, it was well known for SLAPP suits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). Essentially large companies would sue someone over some issue, not because of the actual issue, but to send a message. The message was: "We have deep pockets and can afford to keep you tied up in court for years, even if we lose. But you will be bankrupt from lawyer fees long before that. So don't cross us."
It was very effective and morally bankrupt. Yes, they are sending a message.
I'm not sure if you understand that what you are describing isn't what happened in this story right?
When we lived in Colorado, it was well known for SLAPP suits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). Essentially large companies would sue someone over some issue, not because of the actual issue, but to send a message. The message was: "We have deep pockets and can afford to keep you tied up in court for years, even if we lose. But you will be bankrupt from lawyer fees long before that. So don't cross us."
It was very effective and morally bankrupt. Yes, they are sending a message.
I believe this was the case with the mother & child who tried to get a judgement from Elitch Gardens amusement park many years ago. From what I can remember and its been many years ago..so long ago we are talking about the original Elitch Gardens not their current location. Story goes those two were on the Ferris Wheel until a sudden thunderstorm came roaring though the park which usually happens in Denver during the summer. The park lost power and mother & child were stuck on the ride during the storm. Later the mother would make the rounds in the Denver media ( Rocky Mountain News, Nine News, KMGH channel 7, KOA Newsradio, KHOW, KLZ and so forth ) saying how they thought they were about to die and how Elitch Gardens could had cared less. I remember the mother even told her story to the National Enquier of all people. Of course the mother filed suit against the park but later on I was told she had dropped the suit because of the deep pockets Elitch Gardens had.
We live in Denver and my other half has clients who are lawyers. Over the years they had told us pretty much what you had said...if one wants to sue a business especially a "big" one such as KUSA 9 News, KOA Radio or even King Soopers..you better have lots of cash on hand as they will fight and fight and in the end you will be lucky if don't file bankruptcy even if you do end up winning..
I cannot tell if you are serious or not, so if you are...
I have been to many midnight showings over the years. Never once did anything happen to warrant higher security measures. The theater had no reason to believe that such an attack would happen, and it was not their fault. I'm sure they have already lost, and continue to lose, a lot of revenue over what happened. Why should they be out another 700 thousand? Why should they have to tear down their place of business over the actions of someone else?
My thoughts are, the area is a little rough around the edges and the management should have brought in extra security. My reasoning for the "tear down," is to give respect and memory to the victims of this horrific act of violence.
I can't even imagine going to the movies and having to take cover, protect my loved ones from some mad nutcase, with so much fury and hatred in his heart, to destroy so many lives.
America's innocence is lost. We can't enjoy life, have a decent protest without having to take cover; because some people think in their deranged minds they can kill other people, because they have the fire power and they have no respect for human life.
Of course, this is happening all over the world; but America seems to be falling under an abyss. IMO
I don't agree with sueing the theater because they "failed to provide adequate security". There is no amount of security that can be provided at a cost they and every business can afford, that can protect against the infinitesimally small odds of something like this happening. However, they SHOULD be sued because they banned patrons that were willing to accept responsibility for their own safety via concealed carry, from being able to do so. When they strip individuals from their means of defending themselves, they DO take on that responsibility. Which they failed to do. Thankfully, at least one state has passed laws such that people stripped of their right to self defense by a private business can sue them if they are attacked.
Originally Posted by tnff
When we lived in Colorado, it was well known for SLAPP suits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). Essentially large companies would sue someone over some issue, not because of the actual issue, but to send a message. The message was: "We have deep pockets and can afford to keep you tied up in court for years, even if we lose. But you will be bankrupt from lawyer fees long before that. So don't cross us."
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantan1968
I believe this was the case with the mother & child who tried to get a judgement from Elitch Gardens amusement park many years ago. From what I can remember and its been many years ago..so long ago we are talking about the original Elitch Gardens not their current location. Story goes those two were on the Ferris Wheel until a sudden thunderstorm came roaring though the park...
No, an example of a SLAPP suit would be if Cinemark Theaters were to file a lawsuit against all the posters on this board who badmouth them for attempting to recover their fees, and issued a subpoena to City-Data and the posters' ISPs demanding their identification, in order to silence their dissent.
SLAPP has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adriver
I couldn't tell you how long, (at least the last year), but my local theatre and grocery store both have uniformed police officers out front by the entrance. Not always, but every day at night.
There is an armed guard everywhere I go...it's me.
I do not consider it someone else's responsibility to keep me safe. All the laws, and all the bans, do not stop these things from happening, even in those places where it is practically impossible for ordinary law-abiding citizens to get and carry guns. "Gun control" cannot and will not stop this. The 'bad guys' will always get their guns, or whatever other weapons they choose.
The Orlando nightclub had more than 300 cases of 'successful' gun control- as far as I know, not a single other person in that club was armed (or has been willing to admit to being armed at the time).
There was one nutcase.
So, what do you call those 300+ cases of 'successful' gun control?
Targets, and/or victims.
In most of these stories, the common element is that the victims were unarmed and unable to fight back- the result is a massacre.
Creating *more* 'successful' cases of 'gun control' only creates more targets, more victims who do not stand a chance of fighting back.
Cinemark is well within their rights to attempt to recover their legal fees. They were not responsible for the event, nor should they be. What would happen to prices, if we decided that a business should be held responsible for 100% guaranteeing the safety of their customers? The customers would have to bear those costs with price increases. Would they continue to support the business? Or, given the increased costs, and hassle, of implementing the procedures that would be necessary, would the [former] customers just decide to stay home and watch NetFlix? Then there would be no business.
I don't agree with sueing the theater because they "failed to provide adequate security". There is no amount of security that can be provided at a cost they and every business can afford, that can protect against the infinitesimally small odds of something like this happening. However, they SHOULD be sued because they banned patrons that were willing to accept responsibility for their own safety via concealed carry, from being able to do so. When they strip individuals from their means of defending themselves, they DO take on that responsibility. Which they failed to do. Thankfully, at least one state has passed laws such that people stripped of their right to self defense by a private business can sue them if they are attacked.
I've gone and continue to go to a theater that CLEARLY says they banned guns (in a right to carry state) and check bags. You know what, I've NEVER seen them check bags and I've gone tons of times since the Aurora theater shooting. I can say that I've been some 50 times since then to that specific theater. It's signage with no teeth so should something happen, we may see a lawsuit call this policy into question and you know what, this theater can and should lose it for not doing anything to support the policy.
You should probably read up on the hot coffee case if you think it in any way relates to this case. McDonalds knew their coffee was dangerously hot and would cause third degree burns within seconds of being spilled. They had also compensated other burn victims (the woman who sued, was only wanting her medical bills payed), but continued to disregard the safety of their customers. Cinnemark Theatres were not previously aware of this attack happening, and nothing like that had ever happened before. There was no reason for them to believe something like that would happen. For them to have extra security measures in place when no other movie theater did just doesn't make sense.
I'm one who read the case in detail and also saw the documentary about it. The women had placed the coffee on her lap or something in a car and when car moved forward it fell over and spilled on her.....SHE MISHANDLED IT OR FAILED TO USE A MODICUM OF COMMON SENSE!!!!....Problem is the individual's PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY is never admitted or taken as THE primary cause in these cases.
Coffee "dangerously hot"???...as opposed to what?..."safely hot"?? Even as children we're instructed not to touch something if it's hot and to keep our children/younger siblings away from the stove, iron, frying pan, etc. Coffee, tea, burning coals, glowing stove burners, the sun, etc. should be assumed to be hot and care always taken.
You can use any potentially dangerous item/action and if an error is made or care not taken by a person then an injury can occur...for example...If I buy a top of the line chef's knife and then drop it or misuse it causing a serious disfiguring injury then I can sue claiming it was "dangerously sharp"???.....same goes for burning myself using a bbq, cutting my foot off with a lawnmower, misusing a gun, snowblower, power tool, etc., etc.....what it comes down to is people being unable to accept that THEY were the cause of what happened & primarily responsible for it in these cases (or..more likely...the ambulance chasers convincing them they were in no way wrong but everyone else was).
Last edited by luckyram; 07-10-2016 at 07:36 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
