You knew it was coming eventually. Some guy is suing people for the attacks.
Calling the dude a douche begins in 3.....2......1....
You knew it was coming eventually. Some guy is suing people for the attacks.
Calling the dude a douche begins in 3.....2......1....
And I say again, I hate people.
Yeah kinda figured someone was going to sue. Not sure what grounds but if people can sue for McDonald's making them fat then I can imagine this would be available as well
I knew a suit would happen, but I at least expected it to actually come from a victim.
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
$$$$......smh.....nothing surprising anymore due to $$$.Originally Posted by JeffHCross
What he said.
And I say again, I hate people.
Now I'm just waiting for the suit that includes Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale in it, as well as Warner Bros.. You know it's only a matter of time.
This suit includes WB. Apparently they made a "violent movie." A movie the the shooter hadn't seen, thus couldn't be an influence.
I was going to say it had to include them. Who else would it include in order for them to gain the true monetary value they were looking for
Of course they are likely talking about the Dark Knight where apparently the shooter got his "influence" from by calling himself the Joker
I don't know, the article says they're suing WB because the Dark Knight Rises and not The Dark Knight. But even still, there's nothing anyone could really do to prevent it outside of making all emergency exit alarmed doors.
I know that. I was talking about the inevitable future suits. Because of this guy, it's only a matter of time before dozens of lawsuits starting flooding in. Employees, people who were in other theaters, people who were standing outside the theater, god only knows. And thus, in addition to suing WB (like this guy did), it's only a matter of time before someone also tries to sue Nolan and Bale in addition to WB. They are thinking they're gonna get a big payday. I'm thinking I'd like to meet the fucker and deck him, ESPECIALLY if I was one of these victims or a family member of the actual victims.
The founding fathers of America saw it shall we say differently:
In order words, American policy is that people with guns is a good thing to protect our security.A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
If American liberals want to take away ALL guns (or some other variation of gun control) there is a process to amend the Constitution.
Canada can do whatever it thinks is best for Canada. But personally I'd be worried about the impendinv invasion by Zach Morris (searched everywhere for the video of "We should attack Canada..." from Saved by the Bell but could not find it).
Yep the lawsuits are going to be flying all over the place I would suspect the University of Colorado will not be added due to their failure to get the mail to the M.D. the letter where he outlined the killing a week in advance while it sat in the mail room.
I also heard TGT was going to be sued too due to the thread about the movie spreading the violent hype. If they only had a lawyer to defend the site from liberal tyranny.
Statistics shared earlier show otherwise.I just don't buy this perspective of "deterrent."
Or perhaps just read this:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/gun-control.html3. 1980s data on the defensive efficacy of handguns
In any event, all pre-1980s work has been eclipsed by more recent data which allows estimation not only of how many felons armed citizens kill annually but also of those they capture or scare off. This evidence derives from private national surveys on gun issues. Though sponsored by pro- or anti-gun groups the polls were conducted by reputable independent polling organizations and have all been accorded credibility by social scientists analyzing gun issues.{84} Further evidencing the polls' accuracy, is that their results are consistent (particularly their results on defensive gun use), regardless of their sponsorship.{85} Moreover, because the different surveys' data are mutually consistent, any suspicion of bias or falsification may be precluded by simply not using the data from the NRA-sponsored polls.
Based therefore only on the anti-gun polls, it is now clear that handguns are used as or more often in repelling crimes annually as in committing them, c. 645,000 defense uses annually vs. c. 580,000 criminal misuses.{86} Handguns are used another 215,000 times annually to defend against dangerous snakes and animals. As to their effectiveness, handguns work equally well for criminals and victims: in about 83% of the cases in which an victim is faced with a handgun, he (or she) submits; in 83% of the cases in which a victim with a handgun confronts a criminal the criminal flees or surrenders.
This victim survey data is confirmed by complementary data from a survey among felons in state prisons across the country. Conducted under the auspices of the National Institute of Justice, the survey found 34% of the felons saying that
they had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim," [quoting the actual question asked] and about two-thirds (69%) had at least one acquaintance who had had this experience.{87}
In response to two other questions: 34% of the felons said that in contemplating a crime they either "often" or "regularly" worried that they "Might get shot at by the victim"; and 57% agreed that "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."{88}
In sum: the claim that "Guns purchased for protection are rarely used for that purpose" could not have been maintained by a full and accurate rendition of even the pre-1980s data; and that claim is definitively refuted by the comprehensive data that have been collected in the 1980s under the auspices of the National Institute of Justice and both pro- and anti-gun groups
That is a cultural problem, not a gun problem. Look at the Swiss who have guns galore but barely any crime compared to the US. Culture. Training.If that were the case Texas should have one of the lowest crime rates around due to the frequent use of he death penalty. If deterrent worked than the USA should not have one of the largest prison populations in the developed world.
Here is a fun read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/gun-control.html
Everyone is entitled to their own philosophy. You can thank the gun owners for helping to secure that.Personally I am of the philosophy of the fewer guns in society, any society, the better. Now let's put this in perspective though... my opinion on this is a minority voice on this forum (a liberal, non-gun owning Canadian who believes in healthcare and social welfare over warfare and who also who lives in Vcr, one of the most laid back cities in North America).
Don't confuse guns and normal society with that of some asshole who went crazy. If guns weren't available, said crazy person would find another way to commit a mass attack like chemicals or what have you....it was clear the asshole in the CO theater would have gone through the steps of that given what he did to his apartment.
No disrespect but how would one know if deterrence worked in any given situation? Certainly it does not work on those that committ the act but we will never know about those that chose not to committ any given act due to the threat of punishment. Far as Canadian policy, it is easy to be laid back when the U.S.A. is your neighbor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
Another lawsuit in the works; this one against the theater:
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.
“We have the experience and the contacts to hopefully end this litigation quickly,” attorney Marc Bern said.
Bern is with Napoli, Bern, Ripka, and Scholonik, a New York firm that has represented victims from Sept. 11 and the Costa Concordia ship wreck. Bern won’t say who, but they’ve partnered with a local firm and are now representing many of the theater shooting victims, trying to get compensation.
“The victims here are some of the worst types of injuries that I have seen in over 37 years of practice,” Bern said. “I believe that the primary responsibility at this point rests with Cinemark.”
Bern says right now they’re investigating to see if there were any past incidents at the theater and if there should have been more security there. Also in their crosshairs, the mental health professionals suspect James Holmes saw in the past.
“Either they did warn, and if they did, who did they warn. And if they failed to warn, should they have warned?”
That has been a central question in the case, and because of doctor-patient confidentiality, it’s something that may never be revealed.
Aurora police say no major incident like a shooting has ever happened before in the theater, but has happened in the nearby mall. Cinemark has yet to comment on the impending litigation.
The dude bought a ticket, went through the emergency exit and propped it open, got his guns, and came back through the illegally propped door.
How is this the theater's fault?
The theater should sue this firm for wasting their time. The article even says what the firms intentions are: get a quick settlement. I know there are good, honest lawyers out there but these d-bags is what makes everyone hate the profession.
I can see the argument that the emergency exit door shouldn't have been allowed to remain open. But that's about it. Certainly not enough to warrant a lawsuit.
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
Just a guess as I don't know, but I assume it was propped open with something so small that the door being open was unnoticeable without paying attention to it.
Oh, I know. I just meant that I would personally expect emergency exit doors to be alarmed. Unless it was one of those "it's an Emergency Exit, but anyone can go out via it" doors that I've always thought were a bad idea.
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
I'm pretty sure they were movie's-over-go-straight-to-the-parking-lot "emergency" doors. Thats how all the theaters around here are. They aren't alarmed.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks