• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Cinemark be held civilly liable for the Aurora massacre?

Should Cinemark be held legally liable for the Massacre by Holmes


  • Total voters
    37

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,437
Reaction score
79,389
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
victims of the Holmes mass shooting in Aurora Colorado have filed a suit against the movie theater-Cinemark-claiming that their injuries or the deaths of family members could have been prevented if Cinemark had armed guards or a better security system (the killer propped open a rear entry to the theater and used that to retrieve weapons he had stashed outside the theater and attack the patrons).

Cinemark has defended against this tort suit on the grounds that the massacre was unforeseeable

Trial begins in lawsuit against Cinemark in Aurora movie theater shooting - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
victims of the Holmes mass shooting in Aurora Colorado have filed a suit against the movie theater-Cinemark-claiming that their injuries or the deaths of family members could have been prevented if Cinemark had armed guards or a better security system (the killer propped open a rear entry to the theater and used that to retrieve weapons he had stashed outside the theater and attack the patrons).

Cinemark has defended against this tort suit on the grounds that the massacre was unforeseeable

Trial begins in lawsuit against Cinemark in Aurora movie theater shooting - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com
No. It was unforeseeable.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
victims of the Holmes mass shooting in Aurora Colorado have filed a suit against the movie theater-Cinemark-claiming that their injuries or the deaths of family members could have been prevented if Cinemark had armed guards or a better security system (the killer propped open a rear entry to the theater and used that to retrieve weapons he had stashed outside the theater and attack the patrons).

Cinemark has defended against this tort suit on the grounds that the massacre was unforeseeable

Trial begins in lawsuit against Cinemark in Aurora movie theater shooting - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com

We know that there will be people shotin the street. That is foreseeable. Can the government be sued for not preventing an individual incident? After all, the prime duty of government and the main reason to have one ist to maintain security and safety for the citizens.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I feel for those families. I really do. But you can't prepare for everything. And sometimes **** just happens. And I don't really want armed guards every place I go.

I don't think it is a business establishment's duty to protect its customers from outside dangers. You aren't required to utilize their services. As opposed to schools and government buildings, who I DO believe have a duty to protect the people inside.

I am personally against gun free zones but also believe a private business has the right to make itself one. You get to decide whether or not you want to do business with that establishment and accept the risks involved.
 

fredmertzz

Active member
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Messages
471
Reaction score
183
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If we expect public businesses to start protecting us against every possible threat, costs will increase exponentially. It would be ludicrous to expect emergency back door exits (that are required to exist, by law) to be monitored at all times at all businesses. The business is not at fault in this incident. There is of course a factor of negligence that can play a part in other cases. But no such negligence exists in this case, IMO.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
79,298
Reaction score
47,104
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
victims of the Holmes mass shooting in Aurora Colorado have filed a suit against the movie theater-Cinemark-claiming that their injuries or the deaths of family members could have been prevented if Cinemark had armed guards or a better security system (the killer propped open a rear entry to the theater and used that to retrieve weapons he had stashed outside the theater and attack the patrons).

Cinemark has defended against this tort suit on the grounds that the massacre was unforeseeable

Trial begins in lawsuit against Cinemark in Aurora movie theater shooting - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com

Armed guards in a movie theater? Geez.

No, the move theater is liable for anything, this was completely unforeseen. People just trying to cash in on tragedy.
 

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,364
Reaction score
4,980
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
victims of the Holmes mass shooting in Aurora Colorado have filed a suit against the movie theater-Cinemark-claiming that their injuries or the deaths of family members could have been prevented if Cinemark had armed guards or a better security system (the killer propped open a rear entry to the theater and used that to retrieve weapons he had stashed outside the theater and attack the patrons).

Cinemark has defended against this tort suit on the grounds that the massacre was unforeseeable

Trial begins in lawsuit against Cinemark in Aurora movie theater shooting - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com

The attack was unforseeable. I don't think any reasonable person expects armed guards at a movie theater.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,437
Reaction score
79,389
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The attack was unforseeable. I don't think any reasonable person expects armed guards at a movie theater.

I believe that if a public area bans CCW then it has a duty to provide security.
 

Citizen.Seven

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
718
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I feel for those families. I really do. But you can't prepare for everything. And sometimes **** just happens. And I don't really want armed guards every place I go.

I don't think it is a business establishment's duty to protect its customers from outside dangers. You aren't required to utilize their services. As opposed to schools and government buildings, who I DO believe have a duty to protect the people inside.

I am personally against gun free zones but also believe a private business has the right to make itself one. You get to decide whether or not you want to do business with that establishment and accept the risks involved.
By making it a GFZ, the proprietor assumes some level of responsibility for its patrons. If I recall correctly, Aurora was a GFZ, though I'll have to verify that. Almost every mass shooting in the last few years has incurred in one.

As for being "unforeseeable", that's disingenuous. There were too many incidents of GFZs being shot up for this to be considered 'unforeseeable'. Unlikely, yes. Not worth the bother of taking precautions? Evidently, the owners thought so.
 

Gaius46

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
14,502
Reaction score
8,067
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
No they aren't liable. And I for one do not want to live in a society where there are armed guards and metal detectors everywhere.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I think "foreseeable" is the wrong term*. Any attack anywhere is "foreseeable" in the sense that it could happen, but it's pretty unlikely, and maybe that's the standard we should be going with.

*- Legal relevance, I'm sure, but still...
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
By making it a GFZ, the proprietor assumes some level of responsibility for its patrons. If I recall correctly, Aurora was a GFZ, though I'll have to verify that. Almost every mass shooting in the last few years has incurred in one.

I respectfully disagree. To me a GFZ sign is declaring, "Enter at your own risk".
 

PoS

Minister of Love
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
24,108
Reaction score
17,706
Location
Oceania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
victims of the Holmes mass shooting in Aurora Colorado have filed a suit against the movie theater-Cinemark-claiming that their injuries or the deaths of family members could have been prevented if Cinemark had armed guards or a better security system (the killer propped open a rear entry to the theater and used that to retrieve weapons he had stashed outside the theater and attack the patrons).

Cinemark has defended against this tort suit on the grounds that the massacre was unforeseeable

Trial begins in lawsuit against Cinemark in Aurora movie theater shooting - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com

With that kind of victim logic they might as well blame Batman too since it was his movie that was showing and the shooter was a fan.
 

fredmertzz

Active member
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Messages
471
Reaction score
183
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
By making it a GFZ, the proprietor assumes some level of responsibility for its patrons. If I recall correctly, Aurora was a GFZ, though I'll have to verify that. Almost every mass shooting in the last few years has incurred in one.

As for being "unforeseeable", that's disingenuous. There were too many incidents of GFZs being shot up for this to be considered 'unforeseeable'. Unlikely, yes. Not worth the bother of taking precautions? Evidently, the owners thought so.

So what you're saying is that if a business makes a rule, which they are legally allowed to make, for the purpose that they believe it will make their location safer and if a customer breaks said rule and injures another patron (either intentionally or unintentionally), that it is the fault of the business for making the rule to begin with?

Don't get me wrong: I believe GFZ's ARE dangerous. But current laws allow businesses to make their business a GFZ. If it was posted as such and you enter the business anyway under their rules, you understand that you are now at risk and assume that risk.
 

HonestJoe

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
5,619
Reaction score
2,868
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I believe that if a public area bans CCW then it has a duty to provide security.
I’d respectfully suggest a population which feels it needs either personal firearms or armed security in all public places has fundamentally failed somewhere down the line. Maybe you need to be asking yourselves higher-level questions than this one.
 

Citizen.Seven

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
718
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So what you're saying is that if a business makes a rule, which they are legally allowed to make, for the purpose that they believe it will make their location safer and if a customer breaks said rule and injures another patron (either intentionally or unintentionally), that it is the fault of the business for making the rule to begin with?

Don't get me wrong: I believe GFZ's ARE dangerous. But current laws allow businesses to make their business a GFZ. If it was posted as such and you enter the business anyway under their rules, you understand that you are now at risk and assume that risk.

Just "making a rule" isn't enough, they have to make a good faith effort to enforce it, or else suffer civil suits for the failure of their rule. That means searches and metal detectors, like you have at airports, courthouses, etc. Currently, hanging a GFZ sign has the effect of disarming only those who don't intend to do harm which has been proven time and time again. It's about time public accommodations take responsibility for their actions.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,437
Reaction score
79,389
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I’d respectfully suggest a population which feels it needs either personal firearms or armed security in all public places has fundamentally failed somewhere down the line. Maybe you need to be asking yourselves higher-level questions than this one.

Nope, specific questions about a specific lawsuit
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,437
Reaction score
79,389
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Just "making a rule" isn't enough, they have to make a good faith effort to enforce it, or else suffer civil suits for the failure of their rule. That means searches and metal detectors, like you have at airports, courthouses, etc. Currently, hanging a GFZ sign has the effect of disarming only those who don't intend to do harm which has been proven time and time again. It's about time public accommodations take responsibility for their actions.

exactly, if this theater had NOT posted it was a GFZ, I would have voted no-no liability. ONCE an establishment affirmatively disarms lawful people then it has a duty to provide security since GFZs advertise to killers that their victims will be helpless
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I believe that if a public area bans CCW then it has a duty to provide security.
I don't. Ok, maybe a Barney Fife security guard to keep kids in line and stuff, but not on the level of expecting a mass shooter. That's still not a common enough expectation.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,437
Reaction score
79,389
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I don't. Ok, maybe a Barney Fife security guard to keep kids in line and stuff, but not on the level of expecting a mass shooter. That's still not a common enough expectation.

you understand that if the Movie had not posted GFZ signs I would state that they are not liable?
 

fredmertzz

Active member
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Messages
471
Reaction score
183
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Just "making a rule" isn't enough, they have to make a good faith effort to enforce it, or else suffer civil suits for the failure of their rule. That means searches and metal detectors, like you have at airports, courthouses, etc. Currently, hanging a GFZ sign has the effect of disarming only those who don't intend to do harm which has been proven time and time again. It's about time public accommodations take responsibility for their actions.

Your point is well-taken. Though I'm less apt to say now that the Cinemark shouldn't be held liable, I still stand with my answer. You assume the risk of a GFZ by entering a GFZ. The lack of metal detectors and searches is apparent upon entering. We cannot start legislating that if a business makes a rule, they must make considerable (and often costly) effort to enforce it.
 

Medusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
39,861
Reaction score
7,847
Location
Turkey
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Security has to be provided in crowded public places especially when the number of such shooting cases is increasing in a country
 

Citizen.Seven

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
718
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I don't. Ok, maybe a Barney Fife security guard to keep kids in line and stuff, but not on the level of expecting a mass shooter. That's still not a common enough expectation.

Then maybe they shouldn't hang signs guaranteeing no armed response, orr else suffer the civil liability.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
you understand that if the Movie had not posted GFZ signs I would state that they are not liable?
I do understand that, but I still disagree. *IF* they are liable for anything, it would be the lax security in allowing an emergency exit door to be propped open, etc. Mass shootings, in and of themselves, still aren't so common that that would have been a reasonable fear for anyone.
 
Top Bottom