ThatDarkFellow: attention span of a retarded fruit fly: I know this is probably out of place. But as a parent of small children, why was there a 6 yr old in there watching a violent movie?

Since you're going off topic I just wanted to also note who the hell brings infants and toddlers to midnight screenings? Never mind the fact the kid should be in bed, but you have to be some self absorbed piece of shiat to ruin everyone else's time because you think you deserve to go to a midnight screening even though you couldn't get your crotchfruit a sitter. You god damn know the shiats are going to be screaming/crying/talking/etc the entire time.

My parents used to take me to the drive-in for all night screenings. Movies would start at 10 and I would usually last until 1 or 2 before asleep. This was only 20 years ago. Taking a kid out to a late movie is a special treat the whole family can enjoy. I see no problem with it.

Aren't we all outraged by this lawsuit? Couldn't we start a class action suit against Mr. Brown for our collective butthurt?

DaintySavage: ThatDarkFellow: attention span of a retarded fruit fly: I know this is probably out of place. But as a parent of small children, why was there a 6 yr old in there watching a violent movie?

Since you're going off topic I just wanted to also note who the hell brings infants and toddlers to midnight screenings? Never mind the fact the kid should be in bed, but you have to be some self absorbed piece of shiat to ruin everyone else's time because you think you deserve to go to a midnight screening even though you couldn't get your crotchfruit a sitter. You god damn know the shiats are going to be screaming/crying/talking/etc the entire time.

My parents used to take me to the drive-in for all night screenings. Movies would start at 10 and I would usually last until 1 or 2 before asleep. This was only 20 years ago. Taking a kid out to a late movie is a special treat the whole family can enjoy. I see no problem with it.

It also sounds like you were old enough to remember, so you were probably old enough to behave yourself as well. If not, again, you were at a drive-in. You can shiat yourself and cry all you want for all I care. I probably wouldn't hear you anyway.

Enormous-Schwanstucker: Subby, link to the real story next time puleeeze?

Lawsuit (pops)


FTFA: Karpel says "Dark Knight Rises" was particularly violent and Holmes mimicked some of the action. The attorney says theater goers were helpless because they thought the shooter was part of the movie. Karpel tells TMZ, "Somebody has to be responsible for the rampant violence that is shown today."


Fack YOU.

You chose to see it and if you didn't bother to watch the reviews and that rather prominent rating why the hell should you be surprised when it's violent?

He's just throwing so much crap on the ceiling he hopes some of it sticks. I hope a judge admonishes this moran and forces him to cover all the defendants legal costs.

So, Karpel is saying that Sideshow Bob isn't responsible?

And his argument against Warner Bros. will be its own undoing... he's blaming the violence in the movie, the movie that was just premiering and thus Sideshow Bob hadn't seen yet. So he's saying that however long into the movie it was, was enough to suddenly cause Sideshow Bob to be thinking "I wonder who the next villain will be. Oh right, this is the last movie, no more sequels. I wonder, did i get a big enough popcorn.... Oh hey, I'm gonna go grab all those guns I just happen to have in my car".

Well, now we know who Sideshow Bob was after.

Rufus Lee King: Yeah, I knew it. Predictable, really.

[blogs.westword.com image 163x157]

yup.

NL line on up!

bdub77: And the victimization of America continues. Yes it sucks some crazy a**hole with no money killed your friends and almost killed you. I'm sure you are traumatized by it. I feel bad for you, I really do, no one should have to deal with that. But aside from the killer, no one owes you sh*t. Is it the theatre's job to provide you with armed guards and metal detectors? No, but that's the next step. And the rest of us will pay for it.

Soldiers in Afghanistan deal with that kind of crap every day for worse pay than you probably make. They struggle with war trauma all the time. Welcome to humanity.

Not everything is the fault of others. Sometimes it's just one bad person who ruins it for everyone else.

I do however agree that there should be limits on assault rifles, particularly in the ammo/magazine department. You wanna go after someone? Go after the NRA. Go testify in Washington DC about how the guy didn't have to reload, about how you had to watch your friend die. Do something positive for the world, don't just get yours.


I can't say a word; it was already said better.

Rufus Lee King

2012-07-24 02:43:03 PM

Yeah, I knew it. Predictable, really.

Yeah! Bow-tie wearing mutherfarkers are KNOWN for this shiate! We gotta burn down the bow-tie factories if we are ever to get a handle on this crap.

BigNumber12: Mugato: BigNumber12: They still burn court time and resources, generate publicity for scumbags, and encourage others to "give it a shot."

Well both the lawyers and theater patrons would have to be stupid to keep trying the same lawsuit. Warner Bros won't settle either because if they do it'll open the flood gates this time next year for every dickhead whose kid put on a red towel and jumped off the roof because they thought they could fly.


And yet, despite your certainty, here this lawsuit is, being filed because these clowns have some expectation of some degree of success because they've seen successes in the past. Settlements over ridiculous issues do happen, and these lawsuits will continue to be filed, because of the certainty of benefit to the lawyers involved.

Settlements of ridiculous lawsuits do happen, but dismissals of ridiculous lawsuits happen frequently. This one may not make it past the "motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim" stage. I hope.

SlashW: bdub77:

I do however agree that there should be limits on assault rifles, particularly in the ammo/magazine department. You wanna go after someone? Go after the NRA. Go testify in Washington DC about how the guy didn't have to reload, about how you had to watch your friend die. Do something positive for the world, don't just get yours.


I can't say a word; it was already said better.

While I don't agree 100% with the limits on rifles, etc (I do live in TX, we're gonna keep our guns) I do buy if you don't like the policy make a positive move, get involved, don't just 'gonna get some'

I hope the movie theater, the doctors and WB all sue this little prick into debtor's prison. Hell, take a shot at his useless arse lawyer as well.

Some men just want to watch the world litigate.

This sounds like one of those empty City of Chicago buses that has an accident and is suddenly overflowing with riders/victims.

Torrence Brown, Jr. was not shot, but his best friend died and Brown says he is suffering from extreme trauma, according to TMZ.com.

The website said Brown's attorney plans to target three defendants -- the theater, doctors who the attorney says gave the shooting suspect several medications and the movie studio that made "The Dark Knight Rises."

/OH FFS, you didn't get shot, and although I'm sure it was traumatic for you, and you are upset, the theater had nothing to do with it, nor the doctors, nor the people who made the movie. Why don't you sue all the gun manufactures and the people who BUILT the theater? Might as well sue the company who make the hair dye for slideshow bob as well, I'm sure they were at fault too.

You are a piece of shiat who is trying to cash in on a tragedy, and you should be ashamed of yourself. I hope you choke on the checks you get.

cha CHING!!

I think they forgot to add Sideshow Bob's dad to the list of defendants, for not pulling out.

The same person who says "4th of July is a false holiday" and "The Craziest night of my life. So much blood, too many bodies. Its crazy that i even got out. Who ever was in movie, #9, be thankful you have another day. Cause i am. Amen"

So full of BS. Maybe he WILL win a lawsuit and the rest of his life will be a living nightmare. Karma quit school because of recess. It doesn't play like that.

And seriously, has there ever been a case where the judge would look at a plaintiff like this, and tell him off? "You Sir, are a scumbag piece of shiat, you are the lowest form of humanity that I've ever had the misfortune to witness in my courtroom. You're worse than the people who tried to sell rubble from the world trade center. You are less than human sweat, and if it were in my power, i would eject you from the gene pool before you spread your arrogant retardation to the rest of the populace. i hereby judge for the defendants, and award THEM the exact amount that you were suing for. Each. Plus court costs. And to your scumbag lawyer, I hereby revoke your license to practice law in perpetuity for bringing such a vile and transparent money grab lawsuit before this esteemed court, and order you flogged in the public square with your plaintiff. To be televised on pay for view and the proceeds going to the victims fund. GTFO of my courtroom.

farkmedown: Mensan: PonceAlyosha: How exactly is the theater or the movie studio culpable?

Had I been injured there, or lost a relative, I would immediately sue the theater. The claim would be that when they decided to refuse to allow patrons to carry tools of self defense, they assumed the responsibility to protect every one of their customers. The case would almost certainly go to trial and go through an appeals process, but it is important to have courts decide if property owners are responsible when they make their business into a defenseless victim zone.

This.
/I can see what you're saying, but due to gang violence they HAVE to have a rule of no guns in the theater or every time they showed a rap movie, it would turn into WW3.

//too much?
///slashy attack.

Mugato: farkmedown: Mensan: PonceAlyosha: How exactly is the theater or the movie studio culpable?

Had I been injured there, or lost a relative, I would immediately sue the theater. The claim would be that when they decided to refuse to allow patrons to carry tools of self defense, they assumed the responsibility to protect every one of their customers. The case would almost certainly go to trial and go through an appeals process, but it is important to have courts decide if property owners are responsible when they make their business into a defenseless victim zone.

This.

Yeah, this. Let's all just carry six shooters everywhere we go. I would enjoy going to any random public place and have bullets whizzing by because some dickhead tripped or got into an argument and had a duel.

You are conflating miscreants who should never touch weapons with the law-abiding. Regardless of whether a dark, smoke-filled theatre is a place to point a loaded weapon (and generally it's not), by removing that option from the law-abiding, the theatre does take extra responsibility for the safety of everyone within and definitely should be held responsible.

I'm surprised it took this long.

I hope someone actually shoots this person

A critical detail that people seem to have only slightly noticed is that nobody else in the theater had a gun. With a little help from Google, I see that Cinemark Theaters has a policy forbidding guns, concealed or not. Given this, perhaps someone could make the case that Cinemark contributed to the severity of the crime by assuring that nobody in the theater could resist. This sort of thing needs to be hammered home every time there's an attack on unarmed people.

Mugato: Mensan: Had I been injured there, or lost a relative, I would immediately sue the theater. The claim would be that when they decided to refuse to allow patrons to carry tools of self defense, they assumed the responsibility to protect every one of their customers

That's retarded. If they let everyone carry "tools of self defense", there'd be a much bigger chance of some jackass accidentally shooting himself or two jackasses getting into an argument over a cell phone and shooting up the place than something like this happening again. Sorry, I want to go to places like movies theaters without feeling like I'm in a saloon in a Clint Eastwood film.

This isn't a problem in places where concealed carry is common. Why do you think your scenario would be any different?

LaughingRadish: A critical detail that people seem to have only slightly noticed is that nobody else in the theater had a gun. With a little help from Google, I see that Cinemark Theaters has a policy forbidding guns, concealed or not. Given this, perhaps someone could make the case that Cinemark contributed to the severity of the crime by assuring that nobody in the theater could resist. This sort of thing needs to be hammered home every time there's an attack on unarmed people.

[concealedguns.procon.org image 640x640]

Cite one place where a well-armed, well-prepared shooter was stopped short by a civilian with a handgun AND there were no collateral injuries caused by said civilian.

Bit'O'Gristle: farkmedown: Mensan: PonceAlyosha: How exactly is the theater or the movie studio culpable?

Had I been injured there, or lost a relative, I would immediately sue the theater. The claim would be that when they decided to refuse to allow patrons to carry tools of self defense, they assumed the responsibility to protect every one of their customers. The case would almost certainly go to trial and go through an appeals process, but it is important to have courts decide if property owners are responsible when they make their business into a defenseless victim zone.

This.
/I can see what you're saying, but due to gang violence they HAVE to have a rule of no guns in the theater or every time they showed a rap movie, it would turn into WW3.

//too much?
///slashy attack.

I've a better solution: Don't show rap movies (and enforce a dress code forbidding thug attire).

ArcadianRefugee: LaughingRadish: A critical detail that people seem to have only slightly noticed is that nobody else in the theater had a gun. With a little help from Google, I see that Cinemark Theaters has a policy forbidding guns, concealed or not. Given this, perhaps someone could make the case that Cinemark contributed to the severity of the crime by assuring that nobody in the theater could resist. This sort of thing needs to be hammered home every time there's an attack on unarmed people.

[concealedguns.procon.org image 640x640]

Cite one place where a well-armed, well-prepared shooter was stopped short by a civilian with a handgun AND there were no collateral injuries caused by said civilian.

Here you go...and people ridicule the mods for not noticing dupes...

ArcadianRefugee:
Cite one place where a well-armed, well-prepared shooter was stopped short by a civilian with a handgun AND there were no collateral injuries caused by said civilian.

Don't even have to leave Aurora for that.

--Carlos V.

ArcadianRefugee: LaughingRadish: A critical detail that people seem to have only slightly noticed is that nobody else in the theater had a gun. With a little help from Google, I see that Cinemark Theaters has a policy forbidding guns, concealed or not. Given this, perhaps someone could make the case that Cinemark contributed to the severity of the crime by assuring that nobody in the theater could resist. This sort of thing needs to be hammered home every time there's an attack on unarmed people.

[concealedguns.procon.org image 640x640]

Cite one place where a well-armed, well-prepared shooter was stopped short by a civilian with a handgun AND there were no collateral injuries caused by said civilian.

Here's one. Here's another that happened this month. You need to keep in mind that these well-armed and well-prepared shooters always pick locations where one can expect few, if any, people to be armed.

Mugato: LaughingRadish: A critical detail that people seem to have only slightly noticed is that nobody else in the theater had a gun. With a little help from Google, I see that Cinemark Theaters has a policy forbidding guns, concealed or not

If by slightly noticed you mean beaten to death...

Well, here we tend to notice the obvious more often. I'm talking about the mass media.

JoeLinux: Here you go...and people ridicule the mods for not noticing dupes...

unbelver: Don't even have to leave Aurora for that.

What part of "well-prepared, well-armed shooter" confuses you two?

"Two masked men ... One of the men had a gun" attempting a robbery is neither well-prepared nor well-armed.

"Two vehicles ended up in the church parking lot after some sort of argument between the drivers" is neither well-prepared nor well-armed.

As a matter of fact, that latter shows exactly what could ("could") happen when people with guns enter into situations that would be much better off if no one had had a gun. Google "argument turns into shooting" for many (many many) more just like it.

LaughingRadish: Here's one. Here's another

That's a little better. Thanks.

Not saying guns (or CCWs) are bad (I fully support Amendment II); assholes with guns are still assholes, guns aside. But the whole "if someone else had a gun, things would have been so much better" argument is fantasist at best. On a clear, day-lit soccer field? One thing. In a dark, crowded, cramped, noisy, smoke-(some say teargas-)filled room is not. Especially when the shooter is wearing armor.

ArcadianRefugee: JoeLinux: Here you go...and people ridicule the mods for not noticing dupes...

unbelver: Don't even have to leave Aurora for that.

What part of "well-prepared, well-armed shooter" confuses you two?

"Two masked men ... One of the men had a gun" attempting a robbery is neither well-prepared nor well-armed.

"Two vehicles ended up in the church parking lot after some sort of argument between the drivers" is neither well-prepared nor well-armed.

As a matter of fact, that latter shows exactly what could ("could") happen when people with guns enter into situations that would be much better off if no one had had a gun. Google "argument turns into shooting" for many (many many) more just like it.

LaughingRadish: Here's one. Here's another

That's a little better. Thanks.

Not saying guns (or CCWs) are bad (I fully support Amendment II); assholes with guns are still assholes, guns aside. But the whole "if someone else had a gun, things would have been so much better" argument is fantasist at best. On a clear, day-lit soccer field? One thing. In a dark, crowded, cramped, noisy, smoke-(some say teargas-)filled room is not. Especially when the shooter is wearing armor.



You know what would have helped even more? If douchbag hadn't been able to buy guns and ammo in the first place.

/Have a hard time giving a shiat about 2nd Amendment when the 4th keeps getting whittled down.
//Let's fark with an amendment that deserves it once in a while.

chuggernaught: ArcadianRefugee: JoeLinux: Here you go...and people ridicule the mods for not noticing dupes...

unbelver: Don't even have to leave Aurora for that.

What part of "well-prepared, well-armed shooter" confuses you two?

"Two masked men ... One of the men had a gun" attempting a robbery is neither well-prepared nor well-armed.

"Two vehicles ended up in the church parking lot after some sort of argument between the drivers" is neither well-prepared nor well-armed.

As a matter of fact, that latter shows exactly what could ("could") happen when people with guns enter into situations that would be much better off if no one had had a gun. Google "argument turns into shooting" for many (many many) more just like it.

LaughingRadish: Here's one. Here's another

That's a little better. Thanks.

Not saying guns (or CCWs) are bad (I fully support Amendment II); assholes with guns are still assholes, guns aside. But the whole "if someone else had a gun, things would have been so much better" argument is fantasist at best. On a clear, day-lit soccer field? One thing. In a dark, crowded, cramped, noisy, smoke-(some say teargas-)filled room is not. Especially when the shooter is wearing armor.



You know what would have helped even more? If douchbag hadn't been able to buy guns and ammo in the first place.

/Have a hard time giving a shiat about 2nd Amendment when the 4th keeps getting whittled down.
//Let's fark with an amendment that deserves it once in a while.

Perhaps, to satisfy your disdain for civil liberties, the Constitution could be discarded entirely.

ArcadianRefugee: JoeLinux: Here you go...and people ridicule the mods for not noticing dupes...

unbelver: Don't even have to leave Aurora for that.

What part of "well-prepared, well-armed shooter" confuses you two?

"Two masked men ... One of the men had a gun" attempting a robbery is neither well-prepared nor well-armed.

"Two vehicles ended up in the church parking lot after some sort of argument between the drivers" is neither well-prepared nor well-armed.

As a matter of fact, that latter shows exactly what could ("could") happen when people with guns enter into situations that would be much better off if no one had had a gun. Google "argument turns into shooting" for many (many many) more just like it.

LaughingRadish: Here's one. Here's another

That's a little better. Thanks.

Not saying guns (or CCWs) are bad (I fully support Amendment II); assholes with guns are still assholes, guns aside. But the whole "if someone else had a gun, things would have been so much better" argument is fantasist at best. On a clear, day-lit soccer field? One thing. In a dark, crowded, cramped, noisy, smoke-(some say teargas-)filled room is not. Especially when the shooter is wearing armor.

"Preparing well" for a crime involves planning things out. Why is Place A better than Place B? One would think a neuroscience PhD candidate would be smart enough to scope out things beforehand, notice that some places forbid the carrying of weapons, and gravitate towards those places. Attempting a mass shooting gun shop with the kind of gear SSB had would be poor preparation. Attempting a mass shooting in a place that forbids weapons would be good preparation. A dark and confused room is not an ideal environment to shoot accurately, but that doesn't justify your position that a gun in such a place would be a bad idea. Emergencies rarely occur under ideal circumstances. You have to deal with them where and when they occur.

And about armor -- if you're shot while wearing armor, that tends to take the fight out of you.

Mugato: Oh and Cloud Angel, swap out the ambulance chasing scumbag lawyer with the victim of your choice. Thanks.

/no wonder people hate farking lawyers



I hate farking lawyers because they always make me sign a waiver......

LaughingRadish: Mugato: LaughingRadish: A critical detail that people seem to have only slightly noticed is that nobody else in the theater had a gun. With a little help from Google, I see that Cinemark Theaters has a policy forbidding guns, concealed or not

If by slightly noticed you mean beaten to death...

Well, here we tend to notice the obvious more often. I'm talking about the mass media.

I'll make it really simple for you. Theaters ban guns for the same reason that most bars and nightclubs do. Because when you are in a poorly lit, crowded, noisy area and trouble breaks out, you're more likely to do more harm than good.

Besides, isn't the first rule in gun safety courses "Don't shoot what you can't see?"

Or do you have a problem with these private businesses running their businesses the ways they see fit? Why do you want to trample on their rights? Why do you hate America?

Having a CCW doesn't make you one of the Expendables, dumbass.

The real victims are in the hospital, asshole.

BarkingUnicorn: More info: Link

I wonder how a Beverly Hills lawyer so quickly found a nobody in Aurora, Colorado.


It's a sixth sense or something for ambulance chasing vermin

People are truly horrible pieces of shiat.