Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TMZ)   With the mother of one victim planning to sue the movie theater and a survivor planning to sue Warner Brothers, The Aurora Movie Theater Massacre lawsuit sweepstakes have officially begun   (tmz.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, Warner Brothers, emergency exits, massacres  
•       •       •

5042 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jul 2012 at 11:08 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



231 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-07-30 03:14:23 PM  

James F. Campbell: Maybe if medical care wasn't so prohibitively expensive in the United States, people wouldn't feel compelled to sue so much.


That may be why some HAVE to sue. A friend of mine was hit by a car while he was riding his bike and the insurance company wouldn't cover any of his medical bill until he sued the driver that hit him. He hadn't been seriously hurt... just a few scrapes, but he went to the hospital just to be sure.
 
2012-07-30 03:15:01 PM  

mcreadyblue: The 350 lawsuits resulted in
settlements totaling more than $150 million. In the end, Valley Coca-Cola paid some $144 million in
claims of which lawyers took an estimated $50
million. Families who lost children received about
$4.5 million from Valley Coca-Cola for each child
who perished while the 60 children who survived
each received an estimated $500,000 to $900,000



Also from the wiki:

"Few of the citizens of Alton attended the criminal trial for the truck driver. Many think that the money received from the lawsuits only brought the town trouble.[7]"

Unfortunately, the citation doesn't lead to a clickable link. But I do know from my cousins who attended the same school that the survivors were definitely changed by their new-found wealth and not for the better.

IIRC, the one person who didn't sue was the bus driver. No clue as to why not.
 
2012-07-30 03:19:18 PM  

scottydoesntknow: balial: Good. Hopefully the 2nd amendment will be struck down when people realise they can't afford it.

How much is a 2nd amendment? Can we pool our money together and share it alternating days?


$1.05
 
2012-07-30 03:27:12 PM  

Kittahinaborx: Woman: Hi, I'd like to exchange some freedom for some safety money.

Court: No problem.


Rest of America: *Face Palm*

Soapbox:
I agree with the alarms on the exit doors (safety/sneaky people entering the theater reasoning) but not the guards or scanners etc... I think guards and scanners and such goes a bit too far (ok more then a bit too far) this was basically an isolated incident (like all mass murders). I like my freedom, I really hate when people want to intrude on that and try to replace it with safety instead for things that randomly happen whether we prepare for it or not. People who do this kind of shiat do it regardless anyway. They also plan it out just like this creep did, where there is a will there is a way and if there is a loophole someone will find it. I do not feel like living in a bubble just to make her feel safe even though she is not that is how life goes (if it's your time it's your time). If we start trading in our freedom for safety then losers like Sideshow Bob wins.

*Steps down from soapbox and exits stage left*


would it have mattered even if an alarm sounded? He comes back 3 minutes later via the same door ...and end result would be the same.. actually maybe even worst because with the alarm blaring.. people may even be more oblivious to his shooting and potentially resulted in even more deaths!!! with alarm sounds, blinking lights and assault rifle firing and flashes all happening at the same time
 
2012-07-30 03:33:46 PM  

Mugato: Celerian: In all fairness, have you BEEN to a Chuck E Cheese?

I like to hang out five hundred and one feet from one.


Let's see, that's either the desired "Lawn-Chair" area to keep you safe from the blast radius while still being able to view your handiwork through a nice pair of Celestron SkyMasters, or your court mandated safety range.
 
2012-07-30 04:03:38 PM  

Dimensio: balial: Good. Hopefully the 2nd amendment will be struck down when people realise they can't afford it.

Constitutional amendments cannot be "struck down".


Ehem

Link
 
2012-07-30 04:10:17 PM  

Il Douchey: FNB: Actually, I can see her point about the emergency doors being inadequate.

Assuming the theater was in compliance with all laws regarding the exits, what would a reasonable penalty be for this lack of extra alarms? In hindsight, it's easy to pick out something that may have made the crime more difficult to commit, this in no way makes the theater an accessory to murder. She just wants free money.



When I hear "emergency exits", I think alarms. So, I tend to think that emergency exits without them are inadequate. That's why I understand this part of her claims.

Is it still pretty much a frivolous lawsuit? Definitely. If there had been alarms, I'm sure ol' Sideshow would have figured out another way to do it.

And, compared to the mind numbing stupidity of WARNER BROTHERS YOU WILL BE SUED BECAUSE OF VIOLENT MOVIES, Suing over doors with no alarms almost seems rational.
 
2012-07-30 04:13:15 PM  

balial: Contrary to folks assumptions around here, I'm not trying to advocate for it, I'm just saying this kind of lawsuit shenanigans could snowball. The flip side, of course, being that maybe a few people get rich and nothing changes.

As I understand it, though, the counter to the "freedom!" argument is the human toll. Unlike the aforementioned hazardous freedoms of automobiles, fast food, cigarettes, knives, and whatever else you care to pick, guns are all too often associated with death and injury. Sometimes it's horribly deliberate like this, others it's accidental. The data shows that statistically bald apes are very bad at handling firearms en masse and it causes unnecessary harm to society when they serve no useful purpose.

Out of interest, how many people dying is enough? At what point would you say "this freedom costs too much". You're clearly happy for a lot of people to die for this freedom. What if it were 100k people are year? A million? Do you think the whole population of the US should lay down their lives so that guns are not outlawed?

Obviously this is just another hypothetical, and it's not going to run away... I'm just saying, all else ignored, how much do you think this freedom is worth? Is it negotiable at all?


All excellent questions though I'm afraid you're appearing to advocate removal of firearms as your premise, intentional or not.

So, you seem awfully concerned... I'll answer, how many deaths does it take before I, personally, say that the freedom costs too much? The answer is not numerical. Though your questions lead to some serious logic flaws, the reality is that there won't be that many deaths by firearm unless there's something greater afoot. Should that happen then, you know what? I'm going to be damned grateful that I have a firearm, am trained, and have experienced combat in the past. It will mean that I have an edge should people attempt to infringe on my domain here in the middle of nowhere. It's a very unlikely scenario but, should it happen, then the last freedom I'd be restricting would be the right to defend yourself.

So, let me see... You want to know how many deaths it takes before I'm willing to take away your right to defend yourself? That's absurd.

You further state that I'm "happy" for a lot of people to die for this freedom. You actually state that that is clear. Now, that right there's just a sign that you're mentally handicapped because, at no point, did I mention my feelings and, in fact, I asked you one simple question and only one question. You seem eager to assume that I'm pleased, I'm not. What I am, however, is not afraid of the potential deaths nor am I a reactionary. Not one of the deaths pleases me but I accept them as a loss that is going to happen in a free society.

Perhaps you fail to comprehend freedom? I'm free to kill you. I'm not at liberty to do so.

You then go on to ask how much this freedom is worth... It is worth the blood of our ancestors. It is worth my time, my life, and the life of those I love. The other option to freedom is slavery and I'm not willing to subject myself or others to that. I'm unwilling to decide that for anyone. If you, or anyone else, wishes to be subservient then, by all means, go for it but don't attempt to include the rest of us. Your rights don't extend that far.

Is it negotiable? No. No you can NOT remove my freedoms. No, your fear is not sufficient justification for removing my freedoms. That is NOT negotiable and that you think that this is something to bargain over with logical fallacies, weasel words, and fear is disgusting. How much are you willing to negotiate on placing black people back into slavery? How much are you willing to negotiate on taking the right to vote from women?

The answer is no, not now, not ever. Not one inch. At no point in time will I be willing to remove someone's freedom from them without just cause.

Should firearms be restricted? Yes, and they are. The restrictions are a bit too strong in some areas and a bit too weak in other areas in my opinion and don't account for common sense, logic, or reality.

So, to answer your question, you're a coward and your ilk is disgusting. At least have the courage to admit it instead of pretending to be just concerned about it snowballing. Your fear is absolutely not justification for stripping freedoms and, fortunately, there aren't any folks coming along to grab guns. As patently absurd as our country is, not even this is motivation enough to get folks to go along with your attempts to fear monger.

You're welcome. I'll look out for your freedoms so you don't have to. Even with your absurdities, even though you and I certainly disagree, and even though I quite likely wouldn't even like you in person - I'll still do that for you.
 
2012-07-30 04:13:37 PM  

Altourus: Dimensio: balial: Good. Hopefully the 2nd amendment will be struck down when people realise they can't afford it.

Constitutional amendments cannot be "struck down".

Ehem

Link


That was not a striking down of an amendment, it's repealing. Repealing is the same method of adding an amendment, hence the 21st repealing the 18th. Striking down is something only the courts can do, and since a constitutional amendment is ...well... constitutional, courts can't touch them.

End result is the same, but they are very different procedurally.
 
2012-07-30 04:14:25 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Il Douchey: FNB: Actually, I can see her point about the emergency doors being inadequate.

Assuming the theater was in compliance with all laws regarding the exits, what would a reasonable penalty be for this lack of extra alarms? In hindsight, it's easy to pick out something that may have made the crime more difficult to commit, this in no way makes the theater an accessory to murder. She just wants free money.


When I hear "emergency exits", I think alarms. So, I tend to think that emergency exits without them are inadequate. That's why I understand this part of her claims.

Is it still pretty much a frivolous lawsuit? Definitely. If there had been alarms, I'm sure ol' Sideshow would have figured out another way to do it.

And, compared to the mind numbing stupidity of WARNER BROTHERS YOU WILL BE SUED BECAUSE OF VIOLENT MOVIES, Suing over doors with no alarms almost seems rational.


They are regular exits.

Not emergency exits.

The red sign above says "Exit".

The doors do not say "Emergency Exit Only".
 
2012-07-30 04:21:46 PM  

Dr Dreidel: f the laws were such that he couldn't have legally gotten a gun, it would either have been way harder to get one (opening him up to exposure many many times before he gets to the theater), or he'd not have been able to.

Assuming he can't get a gun, what are his options?


Natural Gas explosion
Fertilizer explosive
Flamethrower (fun fact: legal to buy and use for agricultural purposes)

There are plenty of options that would have resulted in a higher body count. In the history of "mass murder", guns are the most popular single weapon used...but they average 1 more death per mass-killing than knife-based mass murder (which is on the order of 3.5, I believe).
 
2012-07-30 04:53:51 PM  

WTF Indeed: FirstNationalBastard: But why would anyone sue Warner Brothers, other than for making horrible comic book movies?

Because Warner Brothers will not publicly oppose a massacre survivor and will settle out of court. The conversation will go like this:

"Hey guys, so we've decided to sue you because [Insert Reason Here]."

"Okay, how does 50k sound?"

"Good. Deal."


Pretty much this.
 
2012-07-30 05:05:49 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Getting shot is like winning the lottery!


Not for the chick that got shot and has a $2 million medical bill and no insurance. And why the fark would anyone go to a movie theatre with the filthy seats, 200 cell phones lighting up, $25 for popcorn and a Coke?
I hate to be around crowds and this is a great reason to pack a blaster piece.
 
2012-07-30 05:07:39 PM  

scottydoesntknow: balial: But at the same time, I fully agree with almost everything you say. The roads are unsafe, let's fix them. Obesity is killing, let's fix that. Cigarettes could go away faster. But why the hell should dealing with the gun problem sit in line? They're equally addressable at the same thing.

And again, what makes you think that a sudden change in gun laws would make all the psychos/gangbangers/terrorists/neo-nazis give up their guns? Will they all turn up at "Turn in your guns Tuesday" at the local precinct?


We banned meth, and nobody messes with that nasty stuff any more. Why wouldn't it work for guns?
 
2012-07-30 05:08:08 PM  

UnspokenVoice:
How much are you willing to negotiate on placing black people back into slavery? How much are you willing to negotiate on taking the right to vote from women?
...
So, to answer your question, you're a coward and your ilk is disgusting.


Firstly, I must say I've honesty never thought of it that way. Yes, were the 2nd amendment repealed certainly Freedom would be impacted. That's a given. I'm just saying there are those that say that freedom costs a lot of lives. To liken repealing the 2nd to re-instating slavery or removing women's suffrage? That's an impressive stance. "If I cannot own a gun, I'm nothing but a slave". This is certainly enlightening, thank you.

And, secondly, stooping to personal insults seems unnecessary. However, if I'm allowed to retort, I'm not the one who feels the need to carry a gun in order to feel safe. Perhaps my dictionary defines cowardice differently from yours.
 
2012-07-30 06:03:55 PM  

exatron: lucksi: BTW, how did the shooter enter via the emergency exit? Over here those doors are locked from the outside with no handle and are alarmed as well.

Different in the US?

He entered the theater normally and propped the door open.


In the theater I worked at a couple decades ago each door, or at least each pair of doors in each theater, was hooked up to a light that went on if opened. Presumably to stop people from sneaking in a half-dozen friends in for free rather than preventing some crazed gunman from using that as a good way to get to the guns stored in a car, but still...
 
2012-07-30 06:39:10 PM  

balial: Firstly, I must say I've honesty never thought of it that way. Yes, were the 2nd amendment repealed certainly Freedom would be impacted. That's a given. I'm just saying there are those that say that freedom costs a lot of lives. To liken repealing the 2nd to re-instating slavery or removing women's suffrage? That's an impressive stance. "If I cannot own a gun, I'm nothing but a slave". This is certainly enlightening, thank you.

And, secondly, stooping to personal insults seems unnecessary. However, if I'm allowed to retort, I'm not the one who feels the need to carry a gun in order to feel safe. Perhaps my dictionary defines cowardice differently from yours.


It is necessary to insult those who'd strip me of my freedom. I don't carry a sidearm unless I plan to use it against wildlife or if I'm carrying a large amount of cash. Then I open carry as a deterrent instead of hoping to use it. It is hardly cowardice and, yes, you're motivated by fear.

I'm happy to enlighten you but that is not my job. Every single law is a restriction of freedom and, yes, we as a society give up our liberties in exchange for freedom. In other words, it is illegal to murder someone. You're perfectly free to murder but you're not at liberty to do so. In a perfect world there would be no need to defend oneself from an aggressor but we don't live in that world. There are societies that exist where such is unlikely but those are generally homogenized and smaller. You see similar things where I live, there simply is no need for me to carry a weapon here for self defense.

Are there crimes here? Of course. The chance of a me being a victim of a crime is so low that I simply can't justify the labor and attention required to carry constantly UNLESS I plan on harvesting an animal (and yes, yes I can take a deer, rabbit, or other game comfortably with a sidearm) or am actively transferring large quantities of cash which I do quite frequently (as compared to most).

I'm not sorry for resorting to name calling. It's the least I can do when someone actively pursues converting other people to the idea of taking away the freedoms we have.

Do you know what scares me most? You thinking that 100,000 or more non-justified firearm fatalities is reason to disarm the populace. If something has gone that drastically wrong then the idea you're presenting is silly. You're taking away their right to defend themselves at a time when, obviously, they need to.

Now, let's compare the practicality... There is simply no way you're going to remove firearms. I'm all for restricting times, places, and situations where firearms should be allowed. I'm all for assuring that the firearms are sold to people who've demonstrated a reasonable skill level and trustworthiness. However, that does nothing about illegal firearms and lawful firearms aren't the problem regardless of what you want to believe.

I know people are really enjoying the idea that they can point to this tragedy and say that these were lawfully purchased firearms. They can, and will, get them from someone off the books - person to person sales require NO background check. The technology, material, and intelligence has reached the point where we have learned to make boom sticks. I can build one right here. I can PROBABLY even make some gun powder with a little bit of effort and some playing around. You can never take that away.

However... When they took down the towers on 9/11 did you advocate banning airplanes? Do you respond to automobile tragedies by claiming that it will snowball and asserting that we need to ban automobiles? Of course not. Now, the reality is that a firearm is a tool. I have killed more paper targets than most, I've killed a whole variety of animals for food, and I've shot at my fellow man because he was shooting back at me and because those were my orders. (I don't think I killed anyone. I'm grateful for that.)

Again, if there are a million firearm deaths per year then the last thing a law-abiding person should be subjected to is stripping their most effective means of defending themselves against those who would do them harm. That you would equate higher numbers of CRIMINAL acts as a reason to strip citizens of their defense is absurd and the idea SHOULD be mocked.

And, so you don't make strange assumptions... I'm not a right-wing, GOP-following, mouth-breathing, Bible-thumping, redneck who thinks the government is out to take our guns. They're not... There's no reason to. Read the current edition of Time Magazine for a good article if you want. I'm a rather centrist, moderate, left-leaning, drug-addled, long-haired, hippie who's happily a fairly well heeled (retired due to selling my business) guy who supports equal rights, logic, honesty, and discussion.

When the position is absurd, it deserves mockery - and when you view your statements they have been nothing but absurd. Your questions were excellent but your position (as you have presented it until you backtracked when responding to me) has been nothing but anti-gun. It has been coy, it has been weaseling, and it has been out of the side of your mouth perhaps but that doesn't change anything.

I don't expect to change your mind. I'm blind pixels spread anonymously across the internet. I hope you don't expect to change my mind. The reality is that we have them. If you'd like to discuss ways to lower gun violence you're going to have to step back, re-think your views, and remove the first word gun entirely. The problem isn't the tool being used, that is immaterial and even if it were material there's absolutely nothing we can effectively do about it. Any steps taken in that direction restricts people from a tool that they can use, effectively and without prejudice to gender, size, sexuality, or race, to defend themselves against those afore mentioned violent criminals.

I can, and will, continue discussing it with you if you'd like. However, if I'm carrying a sidearm it is openly carried and it is there simply for use as a tool or, still a tool really, it is there to prevent foolish people from doing foolish things because I have neither time, inclination, or desire to harm anyone. If you can label that cowardice to help you sleep at night then you're free to do so but that, too, is as absurd as asserting that people who own them suffer from genital issues.
 
2012-07-30 06:40:45 PM  
i remember all those guns and rifles used in oklahma on april 19, 1995.

good times, good times . . .
 
2012-07-30 06:43:06 PM  

pdrake: i remember all those guns and rifles used in oklahma on april 19, 1995.

good times, good times . . .


And ironically he was arrested for carrying a gun.
 
2012-07-30 07:12:07 PM  
Although in generally lawsuits like this are dumb, and I'd be embarrassed to file one, in the case where you might be facing financial ruin due to medical bills and lost wages it is worth a shot. I know that is selfish, but if the system allows it at some point you need to swallow your pride and try to get what you can.
 
2012-07-30 08:09:34 PM  
Um,

NSS?

P.S. Welcome to America, no?
 
2012-07-30 08:16:40 PM  
I think this woman is in grief and a lawyer probably is taking advantage of it and the situation to make money for him/herself.
 
2012-07-30 08:36:08 PM  

4seasons85!: I think this woman is in grief and a lawyer probably is taking advantage of it and the situation to make money for him/herself.


Thank you.
 
2012-07-30 09:11:52 PM  
Pretend I'm expounding one of my political and idealogical beliefs here, and tying those beliefs to some factor of societal downfall as ardent proof the world is a horrible place and should feel bad.
 
2012-07-30 10:03:08 PM  

balial: The nice thing about the insurance cost solution to the 2nd amendment is that it's not some philosophical thing. It's statistics and it's opt-in. "Yes, you can have your guns -- but here's the dollar amount". Many communities will realise that money is better spent elsewhere.


Shootings are fairly rare; even this event Link has yielded about $15MM in Work Comp costs and a $20MM EPL suit. Firearms are a way bigger issue to gas stations and cabbies, and they can still get coverage.
 
2012-07-30 10:29:35 PM  
She may have a case against the theater. Lots of theaters bring in extra security for midnight showings when they are expecting a large crowd (the theaters where I live usually bring in 2 or 3 off-duty cops for big event screenings like this).

The studio, not a chance. There's already a legal precedent set after the Natural Born Killers copycat murders. Besides, how could Holmes have been influenced by a movie he hadn't seen. If he had shot up the place at the end, the lawyers may have an argument, but he started firing just a few minutes into it.
 
2012-07-30 10:45:37 PM  
Ban Batman!
 
2012-07-30 10:49:02 PM  

UnspokenVoice: balial: Firstly, I must say I've honesty never thought of it that way. Yes, were the 2nd amendment repealed certainly Freedom would be impacted. That's a given. I'm just saying there are those that say that freedom costs a lot of lives. To liken repealing the 2nd to re-instating slavery or removing women's suffrage? That's an impressive stance. "If I cannot own a gun, I'm nothing but a slave". This is certainly enlightening, thank you.

And, secondly, stooping to personal insults seems unnecessary. However, if I'm allowed to retort, I'm not the one who feels the need to carry a gun in order to feel safe. Perhaps my dictionary defines cowardice differently from yours.

It is necessary to insult those who'd strip me of my freedom. I don't carry a sidearm unless I plan to use it against wildlife or if I'm carrying a large amount of cash. Then I open carry as a deterrent instead of hoping to use it. It is hardly cowardice and, yes, you're motivated by fear.

I'm happy to enlighten you but that is not my job. Every single law is a restriction of freedom and, yes, we as a society give up our liberties in exchange for freedom. In other words, it is illegal to murder someone. You're perfectly free to murder but you're not at liberty to do so. In a perfect world there would be no need to defend oneself from an aggressor but we don't live in that world. There are societies that exist where such is unlikely but those are generally homogenized and smaller. You see similar things where I live, there simply is no need for me to carry a weapon here for self defense.

Are there crimes here? Of course. The chance of a me being a victim of a crime is so low that I simply can't justify the labor and attention required to carry constantly UNLESS I plan on harvesting an animal (and yes, yes I can take a deer, rabbit, or other game comfortably with a sidearm) or am actively transferring large quantities of cash which I do quite frequently (as compared to most).

I'm not sorry for resorti ...


That's an awefull lot of protesting. Possibly, too much.
 
2012-07-31 12:20:19 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: That's an awefull lot of protesting. Possibly, too much.


You may be right. I do, however, get a little antsy at the thought of people stripping away freedoms even if they're not particularly valuable freedoms to myself. Even assuming they restricted firearms more and more, I'd certainly qualify to retain mine and even if they made it prohibitively expensive I'm able to cope with that as well. I'd be just as vocal if they were attempting to take away the freedom of speech, civil rights for folks, or the vote for women.

I had some hope, albeit a small amount, that this administration would curb some of the enthusiastic trampling of our rights. I was hopeful but, well, not really expecting it.

At risk of being a cliche, assuming you've seen my posts in the past, I'm a real independent and a moderate in pretty much all things. I tend to value honesty, openness, and a willingness to communicate. I see no reason to pretend to be anything I'm not while I have the anonymity we have here online. It does gall me, at times, to see those who would lie while being anonymous, if there's one time when you can (and might as well - and should) be completely honest it is when you're anonymous or when you're talking to your doctor.

Perhaps I'm a bit verbose but I hate having to repeat myself. I'd rather that I made myself perfectly clear the first time - especially when there are those who'd like to twist what you said into a caricature of what they likely knew you meant. So, yeah, if that is too much then I'm certainly guilty. I doubt I'll change and you (if you care enough to bother noting it) will likely note that that is my posting style. Unless, of course, I'm being a prick to someone whom I've learned is an idiot - some of those posts are pretty short. ;)
 
2012-07-31 09:25:26 AM  

Dr Dreidel: If the laws were such that he couldn't have legally gotten a gun, it would either have been way harder to get one (opening him up to exposure many many times before he gets to the theater), or he'd not have been able to.

Assuming he can't get a gun, what are his options?


A dedicated nutcase with a few gallons of gasoline and a cigarette lighter could kill a lot of people.

But more importantly, outlawing guns will not make guns magically go away. We've had a "war on drugs" for decades, but if I went hunting for pot, meth, cocaine, I suspect it would only take me a few hours to find what I wanted.
 
2012-07-31 11:49:14 AM  
So I'm reading Dark Knight Returns, in it, a man shoots up a theater, maybe she should sue Frank Miller
 
Displayed 31 of 231 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report