- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
No. It was unforeseeable.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
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
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
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.I believe that if a public area bans CCW then it has a duty to provide security.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.you understand that if the Movie had not posted GFZ signs I would state that they are not liable?
I don't think it guarantees any such thing.Then maybe they shouldn't hang signs guaranteeing no armed response, orr else suffer the civil liability.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?