Should Cinemark be held civilly liable for the Aurora massacre?

[TurtleDude]

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.

a reasonable argument

 

[Citizen.Seven]

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.

Not if the rule endangers the public. If an amusement park had a rule saying "no seatbelts", does that remove their culpability for injuries resulting from their lack? Private establishments can make any sort of crazy rules they want, but they should be held accountable for them.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

I don't think it guarantees any such thing.

Ok, all but. I suppose there could be a lawful CHL holder who broke the state's laws regarding trespass while carrying, but that would mean they were no longer law-abiding and would lose their CHL in many states.

 

[radcen]

Ok, all but. I suppose there could be a lawful CHL holder who broke the state's laws regarding trespass while carrying, but that would mean they were no longer law-abiding and would lose their CHL in many states.

The likelihood of getting caught would be pretty nil, and I'd bet most carriers know that.

Location means a lot, too. Getting caught concealing at an elementary school might be more risky. At a movie theater, not so much.

 

[TurtleDude]

The likelihood of getting caught would be pretty nil, and I'd bet most carriers know that.

Location means a lot, too. Getting caught concealing at an elementary school might be more risky. At a movie theater, not so much.

violating a private "ban" on CCW is not a criminal offense UNLESS you refuse to leave after being told to do so. carrying at a public school or in a court (assuming you get past the security) or say the US Attorney's Office (same thing-after evading security) is a criminal violation

 

[radcen]

violating a private "ban" on CCW is not a criminal offense UNLESS you refuse to leave after being told to do so. carrying at a public school or in a court (assuming you get past the security) or say the US Attorney's Office (same thing-after evading security) is a criminal violation

That's what I thought, but wasn't sure. You're violating a private business' rule, not a law. But I didn't want to say so then be incorrect, there are so many nuances anymore it's hard to keep track.

 

[fredmertzz]

Not if the rule endangers the public. If an amusement park had a rule saying "no seatbelts", does that remove their culpability for injuries resulting from their lack? Private establishments can make any sort of crazy rules they want, but they should be held accountable for them.

A public business is not putting anybody in danger with the rule of a GFZ, unless someone breaks the rule. They of course are putting people in danger if the rule were 'no seatbelts' in an amusement park.

Also, the rules do not endanger the public. They endanger those who knowingly go into the GFZ business. The choice is on the customer, and so is the responsibility.

 

[antiquity]

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.

I agree with you. The airports are bad enough and like the airports 95% of security test fail, you could only image what a movie theater standards would be.

TSA Fails 95 Percent Of Airport Security Tests Conducted By Homeland Security: Report

Armed guards? Really! What security systems could have possible stopped this attack? I don't want to live in a liberal created society where they think there is a shooter behind every door and under every rock.

 

[haymarket]

I have long favored armed snipers in hidden crows nest up in the corners of every theater in America. If you talk during the movie or act like a fool disrupting others, a red dot would appear on your chest as a warning. And if you continued to be a human buttwipe, a very loud shot would ring out and a shot would hit you right in the middle of your chest. An usher would then come down the aisle and put a placard around the persons neck with two words on it


I TALKED

A photo would be taken and a large display in the lobby would be made of such examples as a warning to others.

You could also use those snipers to protect the customers against wannabe mass killers like in this theater massacre.

Its a WIN/WIN situation.

 

[Gaius46]

I agree with you. The airports are bad enough and like the airports 95% of security test fail, you could only image what a movie theater standards would be.

TSA Fails 95 Percent Of Airport Security Tests Conducted By Homeland Security: Report

Armed guards? Really! What security systems could have possible stopped this attack? I don't want to live in a liberal created society where they think there is a shooter behind every door and under every rock.

The TSA is a joke. It's painfully clear that their purposes in life is simply to look like they're doing something useful without actually doing anything useful. In truth they probably make airports less safe.

 

[Bodi]

The real issue is access to guns. If guns were not available to purchase then the massacre would not have happened...

 

[Citizen.Seven]

That's what I thought, but wasn't sure. You're violating a private business' rule, not a law. But I didn't want to say so then be incorrect, there are so many nuances anymore it's hard to keep track.

It depends on the state. In Texas, carrying past a proper 30.06 sign is a class C misdemenor, enough to have you lose your CHL and a fine of 200 dollars.

 

[Mr Person]

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

Oh, now that's not right.

I'm terribly glad I've never been through something like that, but I damn well hope I would never think of suing on grounds like that. This has nothing to do with the theatre. This has to do with the intersection of protection of the privacy of students/patients and public safety, a mentally ill son and a parent that somehow didn't notice anything was wrong, an utter failure to properly store firearms, and the cover of darkness in a movie theatre. Perhaps more.

Calling this negligent (I assume there's no statute in play) is beyond absurd. The theatre is supposed to foresee that an insane (the jury was wrong) person was going to prop an exit door open to assist with his plot? That it would happen at all? Would I be negligent if a drunk person runs over my wife if I earlier suggested we go for a walk or a drive? After all, there are orders of magnitude more deaths caused by drunk driving than by people shooting up movie theatres (or mass shootings generally. Or shootings generally.)

Fear induces such an outsized proportion to marginal risk...




I hope the lawyer gets dinged w/ R11, too. Our system only works if lawyers zealously defend their clients, but non-criminal attorneys ought not take a case so frivolous that it's unethical either. Then again, things would probably be better if the plaintiff had to do more than convince the jury that its case was greater than the probability that a coin will come up heads.....






Disclaimer: I haven't even read the complaint.

Disclaimer: Not my area.

 

[TurtleDude]

The real issue is access to guns. If guns were not available to purchase then the massacre would not have happened...

well that is like saying if you had wheels you could be a trolley car. you can ban guns and they still be available for purchase. But I think you already know that so what is the purpose of such a silly comment?

IF nukes had never been invented we wouldn't have to worry about nuclear war

if cancer didn't exist-people wouldn't die from cancer

 

[Bodi]

well that is like saying if you had wheels you could be a trolley car. you can ban guns and they still be available for purchase. But I think you already know that so what is the purpose of such a silly comment?

IF nukes had never been invented we wouldn't have to worry about nuclear war

if cancer didn't exist-people wouldn't die from cancer

:roll: People didn't invent cancer... What a silly dodge.

 

[Mr Person]

The real issue is access to guns. If guns were not available to purchase then the massacre would not have happened...

Not to turn this thread into a gun control debate, but:

1. As far as it's a theoretical statement, I absolutely agree.

2. But despite the truth of the point, it cannot get us anywhere. That's because there is no way the 2nd is going to be repealed in this country now, or in any future I can foresee.

3. #2 is why I generally avoid talking about gun control legislation. There are some things that don't really make sense to me for reasonable self-defense purposes, like 100-round magazines and body armor beyond kevlar*. Plus, there are really stupid laws, like the ones defining what is and is not an "assault weapon". It's something like 2 out of X factors, and the factors don't making any sense as far as the supposed purpose goes. But, no dice as to laws that might do something meaningful.

4. Even if the 2nd were repealed, it would take quite a long time to get rid of all the criminals guns. If you made it a serious crime not to turn in your registered (FID or LTC or otherwise) gun, you actually would be helping the criminals. (Emphasis because, in contrast, my disdain for claims that banning guns in places like bars is a bad idea because mass shooters will therefore go to bars)



We've just got to shrug and accept the chance we'll get mowed down. OR, get an LTC and accept the chance we accidentally shoot someone else, we suffer unexpected depression and shoot ourselves, our child steals the gun and shoots itself, we go to shoot a criminal who would not have shot us but who does so because we shot at them, a cop things we're the bad guy and shoots us accidentally, etc etc etc.





*So the owner wears it to bed in case someone breaks in? To work? ....

 

[Citizen.Seven]

A public business is not putting anybody in danger with the rule of a GFZ, unless someone breaks the rule. They of course are putting people in danger if the rule were 'no seatbelts' in an amusement park.

Also, the rules do not endanger the public. They endanger those who knowingly go into the GFZ business. The choice is on the customer, and so is the responsibility.

The rules do endanger the public, both by having them in place with criminal consequences for breaking them and not taking any steps to enforce them. That is the responsibility of the business that set the rule, not members of the public who follow it.

 

[TurtleDude]

:roll: People didn't invent cancer... What a silly dodge.

Its really silly -you get bored throw out stupid lines about guns hoping someone will get pissed off. No one is buying it. The fact is, we ban heroin and its still available for sale. EVEN if guns were banned for citizens, the various government units would still be buying thousands a year meaning that black market would be well supplied. All gun bans do is make things safer for criminals which is what those who really want bans wish to accomplish

 

[Mr Person]

Its really silly -you get bored throw out stupid lines about guns hoping someone will get pissed off. No one is buying it. The fact is, we ban heroin and its still available for sale. EVEN if guns were banned for citizens, the various government units would still be buying thousands a year meaning that black market would be well supplied. All gun bans do is make things safer for criminals which is what those who really want bans wish to accomplish

A brief aside: that's true; but many people - I'm not saying you because I don't recall - who support anti-trans bathroom laws seem to share that viewpoint as to guns; ie, "XZY gun control laws are foolish because they will not stop criminals from getting guns." But, somehow, they fail to realize that bathroom restrictions aren't going to stop a rapist from raping. Further, Trans or not, they tend to commit their crimes where they are not as likely to be discovered as a public restroom....



I mean, if drug laws don't stop junkies and if gun control laws don't stop armed criminals, why does a bathroom access law stop racists who happen to be trans?

 

[Citizen.Seven]

A brief aside: that's true; but many people - I'm not saying you because I don't recall - who support anti-trans bathroom laws seem to share that viewpoint as to guns; ie, "XZY gun control laws are foolish because they will not stop criminals from getting guns." But, somehow, they fail to realize that bathroom restrictions aren't going to stop a rapist from raping. Further, Trans or not, they tend to commit their crimes where they are not as likely to be discovered as a public restroom....



I mean, if drug laws don't stop junkies and if gun control laws don't stop armed criminals, why does a bathroom access law stop racists who happen to be trans?

The difference is, there's a legitimate market for guns, exactly those who would be affected by the various hare-brained bannite laws. There's no legitimate market for heroin, or for "racists who happen to be trans". In other words, innocent people won't be affected by these latter two laws at all, they'll actually have some measure of protection if only by way of deterrence, while they will be the only ones affected by the former.

 

[antiquity]

The real issue is access to guns. If guns were not available to purchase then the massacre would not have happened...

Take it up with the US Constitution.

I wonder how many guns used by blacks to kill blacks in the inter cities were purchased legally?

 

[Mr Person]

The difference is, there's a legitimate market for guns, exactly those who would be affected by the various hare-brained bannite laws. There's no legitimate market for heroin, or for "racists who happen to be trans". In other words, innocent people won't be affected by these latter two laws at all, they'll actually have some measure of protection if only by way of deterrence, while they will be the only ones affected by the former.

I meant "rapists who happen to be trans", not racists... 11:34 pm is typo-time.

Maybe I'm misreading your post, but it sounds like you intend to disagree with me. But the way I read it, your response just bears out my point: we DO NOT need special bathroom laws to restrict which bathrooms trans people use because, as I said and you quoted, "rapists who happen to be trans" aren't going to respect a bathroom law, and thereby be prevented from raping anyone in a bathroom. Meanwhile, you'll only hurt "legitimate" (aka, not-criminal-rapist) trans people with a special bathroom law.


But with guns, it' the same thing. With most of the kind of gun control discussed by politicians in the US, you're probably just going to hurt legitimate gun owners. You're also not going to stop illegitimate gun owners.


Now, there's no "legitimate" analogy for the junkie statement, but I don't think that changes things, because that was raised to reiterate the basic point that criminal laws don't stop people intent on being criminal. And THAT point is what is consistent between the three points - the uselessness of gun control laws being suggested, the uselessness of special bathroom laws aimed at trans people, and the uselessness of laws that make it a crime to shoot heroin.

If you're the kind of person that's going to commit one of the crimes in those categories, the law just doesn't matter as far as deterrence goes.

 

[Bodi]

Its really silly -you get bored throw out stupid lines about guns hoping someone will get pissed off. No one is buying it. The fact is, we ban heroin and its still available for sale. EVEN if guns were banned for citizens, the various government units would still be buying thousands a year meaning that black market would be well supplied. All gun bans do is make things safer for criminals which is what those who really want bans wish to accomplish

Government units supply guns to the black market? And you act as if this is OK or makes a valid argument FOR guns?

 

[TurtleDude]

Government units supply guns to the black market? And you act as if this is OK or makes a valid argument FOR guns?

Its really not worth arguing this with you because its obvious you don't even believe what you are posting. You pretend that we can somehow make guns go away. I was merely stating as long as governments continue to buy firearms and supply worker bees with firearms, they can be diverted even if you were to make all the private firearms disappear (which you cannot)

 

[Bodi]

Take it up with the US Constitution.

I wonder how many guns used by blacks to kill blacks in the inter cities were purchased legally?

Next to none, I bet...