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.

(Deadline)   Judge dismisses Cinemark's latest attempt to ditch culpability for their part in the Aurora shooting massacre   (deadline.com) divider line 276
    More: Followup, Cinemark, Colorado, Colorado theater shooting, colorado law, matter of fact, summary judgment, TDKR  
•       •       •

9122 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Aug 2014 at 2:16 PM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-17 12:21:14 PM  
I'm not sure where I'm at on this. Had the shooter been an employee, I'd think, hey, the movie chain *might*...*remotely* be culpable.

Are movie houses going to install metal detectors at every venue to avoid future "culpability"?

Culpability to me (and IANAL, pretty obviously) means that the exit doors were well lit and not chained shut when the moviegoers needed to run the fark out of that theatre.

Random bastard who decides to go ballistic in a dark enclosed space isn't something I think they could have prevented in any foreseeable scenario.

/everything that touches on liability insurance usually surprises me, so I await startling new data to emerge from this thread...
 
2014-08-17 12:23:20 PM  

corq: I'm not sure where I'm at on this. Had the shooter been an employee, I'd think, hey, the movie chain *might*...*remotely* be culpable.

Are movie houses going to install metal detectors at every venue to avoid future "culpability"?

Culpability to me (and IANAL, pretty obviously) means that the exit doors were well lit and not chained shut when the moviegoers needed to run the fark out of that theatre.

Random bastard who decides to go ballistic in a dark enclosed space isn't something I think they could have prevented in any foreseeable scenario.

/everything that touches on liability insurance usually surprises me, so I await startling new data to emerge from this thread...


I'm with you. I blame the lone nut with the gun. Having said that, they have the right to present their case in court.
 
2014-08-17 12:51:30 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: corq: I'm not sure where I'm at on this. Had the shooter been an employee, I'd think, hey, the movie chain *might*...*remotely* be culpable.

Are movie houses going to install metal detectors at every venue to avoid future "culpability"?

Culpability to me (and IANAL, pretty obviously) means that the exit doors were well lit and not chained shut when the moviegoers needed to run the fark out of that theatre.

Random bastard who decides to go ballistic in a dark enclosed space isn't something I think they could have prevented in any foreseeable scenario.

/everything that touches on liability insurance usually surprises me, so I await startling new data to emerge from this thread...

I'm with you. I blame the lone nut with the gun. Having said that, they have the right to present their case in court.


This. And gun nuts consider me anti-gun. For some reason.
 
2014-08-17 12:57:05 PM  
Another reason I'll never serve jury duty.  It's not Cinemark's fault a gunman went in there with the intent to shoot the place up.
 
2014-08-17 01:06:33 PM  
If we would just allow people to carry automatic weapons into dark, noisy, crowded theaters, this wouldn't be an issue.
 
2014-08-17 01:07:20 PM  
The sad part is they're suing the movie chain because they can't sue the gun manufacturer.  Their lawyer even said so.
 
2014-08-17 01:35:57 PM  

corq: Random bastard who decides to go ballistic in a dark enclosed space isn't something I think they could have prevented in any foreseeable scenario.


I would think so, but according to TFA "80 of Cinemark's theaters did bring off-duty cops or extra security for the opening night of the last pic in the Christopher Nolan-directed Batman trilogy." The film opened on July 16th, four days before the mass murder. So 80 theater managers at least were considering that something might come up.
 
2014-08-17 02:04:43 PM  
Should have sued Batman. He is as responsible for the shooting as the theater.
 
2014-08-17 02:08:11 PM  

Lsherm: The sad part is they're suing the movie chain because they can't sue the gun manufacturer.  Their lawyer even said so.


Suing a gun company for the third party criminal misuse of their product?

In what world is that even remotely sane?
 
2014-08-17 02:11:18 PM  
If the theater had a policy where the back door was propped open for kids to sneak in and watch shows for free, then maybe I could see why they would be culpable here, because of gross negligence.

But are they going to hold McDonalds to a high standard, when somebody shoots up one of those? What about a Bank of America? Chuck E Cheese?

As much as I want the victim's families to get something, I feel this is a very wrong route to take, and may set a dangerous precedence.

/I feel dirty, being on the side of the corporations...
//it still wasn't Cinemark's fault.
 
2014-08-17 02:18:34 PM  
multi-plaintiff action from victims and their families citing the lack of proper security at the venue and the role that ultimately played in the loss of their loved ones lives.

I'm sorry you lost loved ones, but not enough security? At a farking movie theater??

When this gets laughed out of court, I hope that you turn around and sue yourselves for allowing your loved ones to even leave your sight.
 
2014-08-17 02:20:29 PM  
jared lee loughner makes me sick to my stomach
 
2014-08-17 02:21:11 PM  

basemetal: Another reason I'll never serve jury duty.  It's not Cinemark's fault a gunman went in there with the intent to shoot the place up.


This is PRECISELY why you need to service on jury duty: to bring logic and reason to the courtroom instead of leaving it up to shut-ins to be impaneled.
 
2014-08-17 02:21:28 PM  
Are you farking kidding me? What were they supposed to do, have metal detectors and armed guards in bullet proof vests? This represents the pinnacle of libtard blaim party B for party A's crime against party C.
 
2014-08-17 02:21:54 PM  
now can I file suit against Cinemax for contributing to my endless and debilitating fapping?

So many lives have been lost.
 
2014-08-17 02:21:56 PM  

Mentat: If we would just allow people to carry automatic weapons into dark, noisy, crowded theaters, this wouldn't be an issue.


My stance is in a carry-state, if the business does not allow firearms, whether open or concealed, they have to assume responsibility for any death or injuries by nut jobs.
 
2014-08-17 02:23:47 PM  
Idiotic and Sawaya is a giant scumbag.
 
2014-08-17 02:24:02 PM  

Somacandra: corq: Random bastard who decides to go ballistic in a dark enclosed space isn't something I think they could have prevented in any foreseeable scenario.

I would think so, but according to TFA "80 of Cinemark's theaters did bring off-duty cops or extra security for the opening night of the last pic in the Christopher Nolan-directed Batman trilogy." The film opened on July 16th, four days before the mass murder. So 80 theater managers at least were considering that something might come up.


Depends on the location.  At my old movie theater we had cops every day (two on weekends).  But that's because there was a dave and busters right across from us in the mall and we had drunk morons every night.  I'd say on average one person would be arrested every day on the weekends for being a drunken asshole (one took a swing at the cop too and you could just see the "oh hell no" on the cops face when he dropped him and cuffed him) or farking in the theater/hallways.

That being said, even with two policemen they wouldn't have been able to stop shiat.
 
2014-08-17 02:25:19 PM  
OgreMagi: My stance is in a carry-state, if the business does not allow firearms, whether open or concealed, they have to assume responsibility for any death or injuries by nut jobs.

1) Convenience store doesn't allow firearms
2) Nut Job crashes car through front window
3) Profit
 
2014-08-17 02:25:43 PM  

Somacandra: corq: Random bastard who decides to go ballistic in a dark enclosed space isn't something I think they could have prevented in any foreseeable scenario.

I would think so, but according to TFA "80 of Cinemark's theaters did bring off-duty cops or extra security for the opening night of the last pic in the Christopher Nolan-directed Batman trilogy." The film opened on July 16th, four days before the mass murder. So 80 theater managers at least were considering that something might come up.


Difference between expecting fights and expecting a shooting rampage.
 
2014-08-17 02:26:17 PM  

Pull the Plug on Grannie: Are you farking kidding me? What were they supposed to do, have metal detectors and armed guards in bullet proof vests? This represents the pinnacle of libtard blaim party B for party A's crime against party C.


This is why electorate sheep think the TSA is a good idea instead of replacing them with the minimum-wage staff we had before which performed the same level of "security".
 
2014-08-17 02:27:04 PM  

corq: I'm not sure where I'm at on this. Had the shooter been an employee, I'd think, hey, the movie chain *might*...*remotely* be culpable.

Are movie houses going to install metal detectors at every venue to avoid future "culpability"?

Culpability to me (and IANAL, pretty obviously) means that the exit doors were well lit and not chained shut when the moviegoers needed to run the fark out of that theatre.

Random bastard who decides to go ballistic in a dark enclosed space isn't something I think they could have prevented in any foreseeable scenario.

/everything that touches on liability insurance usually surprises me, so I await startling new data to emerge from this thread...


Did he prop a door open and come back in through a door propped open? (yes, he did)

Do they have no way to monitor doors electronically? You know, so when a door is propped open for x minutes an alert is activated so someone can go check to see if people are holding open doors for 'guests' to sneak in for free movies?

I guess that's a tough one, too, since people do routinely exit from those doors and they probably do spend some time held open at the end of a showing.

I guess this may be something people need to consider.

Even if someone saw a warning about the door being open and went to check it out there may just have been another dead body involved.

I just don't know if I can blame the theater for the actions of a lunatic. This kinda of thing could have happened virtually anywhere... with or without security people present.
 
2014-08-17 02:27:21 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: Having said that, they have the right to present their case in court.


The case needs to have some kind of merit, otherwise the system would get gummed up with worthless BS.

I'm very sorry there was a high body count in this case, but the number of grieving families does not make the movie theater somehow more culpable.
 
2014-08-17 02:27:33 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Somacandra: corq: Random bastard who decides to go ballistic in a dark enclosed space isn't something I think they could have prevented in any foreseeable scenario.

I would think so, but according to TFA "80 of Cinemark's theaters did bring off-duty cops or extra security for the opening night of the last pic in the Christopher Nolan-directed Batman trilogy." The film opened on July 16th, four days before the mass murder. So 80 theater managers at least were considering that something might come up.

Difference between expecting fights and expecting a shooting rampage.


This. I imagine a midnight premiere brings out quite a few drunks.
 
2014-08-17 02:31:35 PM  
Yeah. The minimum wage slave laborers didn't do enough to protect your fat movie watching ass.

Movie theater ushers should have assault rifles and body armor to keep people safe.

Then they could shoot people who talk and bring crying children in.

/wait. summery executions of horrible movie patrons might make me buy a movie ticket again for the first time in a decade.
//I'm all for the militarization of ushers now.
 
2014-08-17 02:31:44 PM  

OgreMagi: Mentat: If we would just allow people to carry automatic weapons into dark, noisy, crowded theaters, this wouldn't be an issue.

My stance is in a carry-state, if the business does not allow firearms, whether open or concealed, they have to assume responsibility for any death or injuries by nut jobs.


Actually, there may be something to that: a judge just ruled in a non-related case that a police officer who disarmed a man can be sued because he was subsequently murdered in front of the cop. The idea being that since the officer removed his ability to defend himself, the officer had a positive duty to protect him.

What's interesting is that is a change from prior doctrine.
 
2014-08-17 02:32:58 PM  

Lsherm: The sad part is they're suing the movie chain because they can't sue the gun manufacturer.  Their lawyer even said so.


Nothing sad bout that.
 
2014-08-17 02:33:00 PM  
So a corporation that enforces a policy that restricts citizens from protecting themselves from violent criminals shouldn't have to answer a jury for that policy?  Actions have consequences.  They would have been in a better position legally if they had remained silent on the issue.  Now they have assumed responsibility for security by restricting their patrons ability to do so themselves.
 
2014-08-17 02:34:37 PM  

andyofne: Did he prop a door open and come back in through a door propped open? (yes, he did)

Do they have no way to monitor doors electronically? You know, so when a door is propped open for x minutes an alert is activated so someone can go check to see if people are holding open doors for 'guests' to sneak in for free movies?

I guess that's a tough one, too, since people do routinely exit from those doors and they probably do spend some time held open at the end of a showing.

I guess this may be something people need to consider.

Even if someone saw a warning about the door being open and went to check it out there may just have been another dead body involved.

I just don't know if I can blame the theater for the actions of a lunatic. This kinda of thing could have happened virtually anywhere... with or without security people present.


So employee behind the counter gets the buzz indicating the door is propped open in theater 3, goes to investigate, gets shot in the face or stampeded by fleeing patrons. Yep, an alarm is definitely going to stop a mass shooting.
 
2014-08-17 02:34:55 PM  

lohphat: This is PRECISELY why you need to service on jury duty: to bring logic and reason to the courtroom instead of leaving it up to shut-ins to be impaneled.


It's a catch 22 though. If you bring logic and reason to a courtroom, you don't get selected for jury duty.  They'll stop sending you letters for jury duty entirely if you show you are more intelligent than a pet rock.
 
2014-08-17 02:35:23 PM  
Wait, so, what part did Cinemark play in this? Did they arm the guy? Deny him mental care? What?
 
2014-08-17 02:35:30 PM  

OgreMagi: Mentat: If we would just allow people to carry automatic weapons into dark, noisy, crowded theaters, this wouldn't be an issue.

My stance is in a carry-state, if the business does not allow firearms, whether open or concealed, they have to assume responsibility for any death or injuries by nut jobs.


No. The right to decide what happens on your personal property is just as important as your right to bear arms. Your decision is whether to go to a place that doesn't allow guns. If you don't want to go to a movie theater because they don't allow you to carry that's fine, but your right to carry ends at private property. Adding special liability infringes on the owner's rights.
 
TWX
2014-08-17 02:35:56 PM  
I expect that the company's liability will stem from the shooter being able to exit the premesis, retrieve his unconcealable weapons, and re-enter through the same exit-only door that he left through, not simply that the company let an armed shooter in at all.

The argument can stem from the theatre not enforcing it's own rules about re-entry, in that when he came back he was able to enter without using the same front-door that he originally purchased his ticket at and was at least visually looked at.

Certainly a ruling against Cinemark will leave all theatre owners in a tough spot, as now they'll have to figure out how to make doorways that are supposed to be exit-only actually truly be exit-only or will have to have some form of monitoring that lets them know when a door isn't latched, but given that movie theatres have long had rules against unauthorized entry through most of their doors then I don't see the judge's decision to allow the lawsuit to have its day in court to be without merit. After all, this isn't the plantiffs winning, this is simply allowing them to make their argument.
 
2014-08-17 02:35:59 PM  

Lsherm: The sad part is they're suing the movie chain because they can't sue the gun manufacturer.  Their lawyer even said so.


Why should they be able to sue the gun manufacturers? The guns worked.
 
2014-08-17 02:37:09 PM  

fluffy2097: Then they could shoot people who talk and bring crying children in.


Ok, this idea has some merit...
 
2014-08-17 02:38:54 PM  
If they had signs up that said "no guns allowed" then they are culpable; they said "hey, don't protect yourself from a crazy", implying that they would take care of it for you, and then failing to do so.

But if they didn't have signs up, then they aren't responsible for the shooting at all, and it's disgusting that the victim's families are trying to get a payout from another victim just because it's a company with money.
 
2014-08-17 02:39:01 PM  

fluffy2097: lohphat: This is PRECISELY why you need to service on jury duty: to bring logic and reason to the courtroom instead of leaving it up to shut-ins to be impaneled.

It's a catch 22 though. If you bring logic and reason to a courtroom, you don't get selected for jury duty.  They'll stop sending you letters for jury duty entirely if you show you are more intelligent than a pet rock.


That was my mistake during voire dire when I was a potential juror. Next time, I'm gonna play dumb and keep my mouth shut.
 
2014-08-17 02:41:32 PM  

Pull the Plug on Grannie: fluffy2097: Then they could shoot people who talk and bring crying children in.

Ok, this idea has some merit...


Don't worry, there is a special Hell reserved for people who talk in the theater.
 
2014-08-17 02:42:36 PM  

dittybopper: Lsherm: The sad part is they're suing the movie chain because they can't sue the gun manufacturer.  Their lawyer even said so.

Suing a gun company for the third party criminal misuse of their product?

In what world is that even remotely sane?


Because it's what the product is designed to do.  It even worked properly.
 
2014-08-17 02:44:19 PM  

dittybopper: Don't worry, there is a special Hell reserved for people who talk in the theater.


Great. So they burn in hell LATER.

What about my movie experience NOW?
 
2014-08-17 02:44:58 PM  

Somacandra: corq: Random bastard who decides to go ballistic in a dark enclosed space isn't something I think they could have prevented in any foreseeable scenario.

I would think so, but according to TFA "80 of Cinemark's theaters did bring off-duty cops or extra security for the opening night of the last pic in the Christopher Nolan-directed Batman trilogy." The film opened on July 16th, four days before the mass murder. So 80 theater managers at least were considering that something might come up.


There are so many (more likely) reasons why security might have been hired (bad neighborhoods, younger crowd means crimes like drinking, etc).

Of all those managers who hired additional security, I would be shocked if any of them even considered a mentally disturbed mass shooter.
 
2014-08-17 02:45:33 PM  

Sgt.Zim: Lsherm: The sad part is they're suing the movie chain because they can't sue the gun manufacturer.  Their lawyer even said so.

How is the gun manufacturer any more liable for their product being misused?

Are you going to sue GM the next time some drunken douchenozzle kills a family?

Here's a wild idea: hold the ass-gasket that did the crime responsible.

Oh, yeah, he doesn't have any money...


A car isn't designed to kill a family. In fact, it has  safeguards built in to prevent such an occurrence as much as possible.

Guns such as the ones in questions are designed to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible and were used as designed.
 
2014-08-17 02:45:33 PM  
Someone should sue DC's transportation department over the Beltway sniper.
 
2014-08-17 02:46:09 PM  

SCUBA_Archer: So a corporation that enforces a policy that restricts citizens from protecting themselves from violent criminals shouldn't have to answer a jury for that policy?  Actions have consequences.  They would have been in a better position legally if they had remained silent on the issue.  Now they have assumed responsibility for security by restricting their patrons ability to do so themselves.


Those same citizens decided that it was worth the risk to enter private property and watch a movie without their weapons.  Actions have consequences.
 
2014-08-17 02:46:21 PM  

TWX: I expect that the company's liability will stem from the shooter being able to exit the premesis, retrieve his unconcealable weapons, and re-enter through the same exit-only door that he left through, not simply that the company let an armed shooter in at all.

The argument can stem from the theatre not enforcing it's own rules about re-entry, in that when he came back he was able to enter without using the same front-door that he originally purchased his ticket at and was at least visually looked at.

Certainly a ruling against Cinemark will leave all theatre owners in a tough spot, as now they'll have to figure out how to make doorways that are supposed to be exit-only actually truly be exit-only or will have to have some form of monitoring that lets them know when a door isn't latched, but given that movie theatres have long had rules against unauthorized entry through most of their doors then I don't see the judge's decision to allow the lawsuit to have its day in court to be without merit. After all, this isn't the plantiffs winning, this is simply allowing them to make their argument.


What would have stopped him from coming in the front door and shooting his way into the theater? Instead of propping the door open he could have sealed it so people couldn't run away. Enforcing or not enforcing their policy would have made little to no difference. Also it represents an undue burden on the company to provide that kind of security. I think movie ticket prices are high enough, thanks.
 
2014-08-17 02:47:48 PM  

Truther: Of all those managers who hired additional security, I would be shocked if any of them even considered a mentally disturbed mass shooter.


Maybe they should. Mass shooters are quite frequently nerds.  When was the last time the captain of the football team went on a shooting rampage?
 
2014-08-17 02:48:57 PM  

OgreMagi: Mentat: If we would just allow people to carry automatic weapons into dark, noisy, crowded theaters, this wouldn't be an issue.

My stance is in a carry-state, if the business does not allow firearms, whether open or concealed, they have to assume responsibility for any death or injuries by nut jobs.


The flip side is that you are perfectly free to not enter the building.

My main issue with that is they usually have the signs really small and up by the door.  So you have to go back to your car after you see the sign.  An observant thief would stake out the area by the door and watch for this behavior, then see which cars have free guns in them.
 
2014-08-17 02:50:42 PM  

That Guy Jeff: If they had signs up that said "no guns allowed" then they are culpable; they said "hey, don't protect yourself from a crazy", implying that they would take care of it for you, and then failing to do so.


"No guns allowed" implies nothing other than they don't want you to carry a gun into the theater.  It doesn't imply they have a SWAT team ready to rappel down the walls of the theater at a moment's notice in the event a wacko decides to shoot up the place.
 
2014-08-17 02:51:03 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: OgreMagi: Mentat: If we would just allow people to carry automatic weapons into dark, noisy, crowded theaters, this wouldn't be an issue.

My stance is in a carry-state, if the business does not allow firearms, whether open or concealed, they have to assume responsibility for any death or injuries by nut jobs.

No. The right to decide what happens on your personal property is just as important as your right to bear arms. Your decision is whether to go to a place that doesn't allow guns. If you don't want to go to a movie theater because they don't allow you to carry that's fine, but your right to carry ends at private property. Adding special liability infringes on the owner's rights.


I wouldn't worry too much on this, nor try to discuss it rationally.

Anyone needing to carry a gun with them every single time they leave their home is too much of a wuss to even leave their house in the first place.

Just let him live in his fantasy world of being the good guy with the gun stopping all the bad guys with their guns. It's all he has.
 
2014-08-17 02:52:15 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: OgreMagi: Mentat: If we would just allow people to carry automatic weapons into dark, noisy, crowded theaters, this wouldn't be an issue.

My stance is in a carry-state, if the business does not allow firearms, whether open or concealed, they have to assume responsibility for any death or injuries by nut jobs.

No. The right to decide what happens on your personal property is just as important as your right to bear arms. Your decision is whether to go to a place that doesn't allow guns. If you don't want to go to a movie theater because they don't allow you to carry that's fine, but your right to carry ends at private property. Adding special liability infringes on the owner's rights.


No. If they say "no guns", as is their right, then they responsible for your safety.

Also, as a public accommodation they have fewer property rights then you have at your home. They still have pretty wide latitude, but it's not unlimited.

Now, if the theater or other business wants to post their property forbidding guns, I'm actually OK with that. They just have to make some reasonable effort to protect their patrons. If they don't then they are opening themselves up for just this kind of a lawsuit.

The odds of it happening at any one location are astronomically small, thought, so the business might decide its worth the risk. This one just happened to be on the wrong side of some very, very long odds.
 
Displayed 50 of 276 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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