pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Possible Lawsuit Over Aurora Movie Shootings Targets Owner
#1
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/09/07/po...ets-owner/

Quote:AURORA, Colo. (CBS4) – A possible lawsuit is brewing
over the shootings at the Aurora movie theater, and there may be many
more. The suit could target the owner of the theater.

Lawyers in New York they say Cinemark is the main entity they’re
planning to go after for compensation for the victims. They’re hoping
they can reach some sort of settlement right off the bat, but they’re
prepared to go to court.
Someone tell me how the theater is responsible?
Reply
#2
They are responsible for making it a "gun free zone" but I dont know how they plan on spinning this. I doubt a N.Y. law firm would consider that.
das, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#3
(09-09-2012, 07:50 AM)das Wrote: They are responsible for making it a "gun free zone" but I dont know how they plan on spinning this. I doubt a N.Y. law firm would consider that.
You hit the nail on the head . You can not "make" people helpless with such a low level security
system. The guy just walked in ?
dman, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#4
I'd sue for not letting me carry. At least put the idea out here.
[Image: incubi+INK.jpg]. ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN no diff
Reply
#5
While I think Cinemark is morally at fault, I don't see how they can legally be held responsible. Obey "No Guns" signs at your own risk.
Unbanned since September 2012.
Reply
#6
(09-09-2012, 04:25 PM)jahwarrior72 Wrote: While I think Cinemark is morally at fault, I don't see how they can legally be held responsible. Obey "No Guns" signs at your own risk.
Good point !
dman, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#7
(09-09-2012, 03:38 PM)Spacemanvic Wrote: I'd sue for not letting me carry. At least put the idea out here.


Really, you'd sue over a policy that you AGREED to before you entered?
Reply
#8
(09-09-2012, 05:46 PM)bac0nfat Wrote:
(09-09-2012, 03:38 PM)Spacemanvic Wrote: I'd sue for not letting me carry. At least put the idea out here.


Really, you'd sue over a policy that you AGREED to before you entered?

They AGREED to my safety BEFORE I bought the ticket because the sign was there first.

By placing that sign up and denying me the right to defend myself, they then are responsible for my safety. I agree to enter their establishment because of their assuming that responsibility. They failed in that fiduciary relationship, and so I would sue.

Enough lawsuits like that, the signs come down.
[Image: incubi+INK.jpg]. ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN no diff
Reply
#9
(09-09-2012, 06:37 PM)Spacemanvic Wrote:
(09-09-2012, 05:46 PM)bac0nfat Wrote:
(09-09-2012, 03:38 PM)Spacemanvic Wrote: I'd sue for not letting me carry. At least put the idea out here.


Really, you'd sue over a policy that you AGREED to before you entered?

They AGREED to my safety BEFORE I bought the ticket because the sign was there first.

By placing that sign up and denying me the right to defend myself, they then are responsible for my safety. I agree to enter their establishment because of their assuming that responsibility. They failed in that fiduciary relationship, and so I would sue.

Enough lawsuits like that, the signs come down.


I'm sorry, but you are simply incorrect. There is no statutory duty for anyone to protect you, unless it is specifically stated in a contract, such as for private security contractors. If there is a law that I'm unaware of, please post it.
Reply
#10
(09-09-2012, 06:53 PM)bac0nfat Wrote:
(09-09-2012, 06:37 PM)Spacemanvic Wrote:
(09-09-2012, 05:46 PM)bac0nfat Wrote: Really, you'd sue over a policy that you AGREED to before you entered?

They AGREED to my safety BEFORE I bought the ticket because the sign was there first.

By placing that sign up and denying me the right to defend myself, they then are responsible for my safety. I agree to enter their establishment because of their assuming that responsibility. They failed in that fiduciary relationship, and so I would sue.

Enough lawsuits like that, the signs come down.


I'm sorry, but you are simply incorrect. There is no statutory duty for anyone to protect you, unless it is specifically stated in a contract, such as for private security contractors. If there is a law that I'm unaware of, please post it.
And that's why it should go to court. Whose to say that the theater didn't assume the mantle of responsibility by removing your capability to do so? I'm not aware of any precedent cases that absolve a movie theater from providing its clientele a reasonable level of security. We have sprinklers to protect from fire, fire exits, hell we have access ramps. Where's the protection from a "crazed" gunman?
[Image: incubi+INK.jpg]. ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN no diff
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  3 dead, 2 wounded in Florida truck company shootings soberbyker 1 557 08-25-2013, 12:21 PM
Last Post: ExcelToExcel
  9 Dead in weekend Chicago shootings. nomad 4 1,013 07-07-2013, 11:28 PM
Last Post: ArcticSplash
  Officers shoot suspect in movie theater bucksco 0 581 01-12-2013, 09:38 PM
Last Post: bucksco
  San Antonio attempted mass movie theater shooting STOPPED Publican 3 902 12-18-2012, 06:40 PM
Last Post: The Unknown87



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.