Posted on 09/02/2016 11:24:46 AM PDT by SMGFan
I don’t think even armed security could have done very much, I am sure Mr. Murderer would have taken many out before being put down. Darkness, confusion, element of surprise. . . some things are almost unpreventable. It would have possibly lowered the death count.
Did you read that the defendant, Cinemark, offered a settlement despite winning? The settlement offered a payment and did not collect on legal fees. Some of the plaintiffs refused the offer and were warned that Cinemark would try to collect legal fees.
Why would Cinemark now settle for less then they are entitled to?
The theater disarmed its patrons, they should be liable for ensuring their security. This should be true for every gun-free zone.
Sorry, but the families can try to appeal but the state law is pretty clear, you file a civil suit and lose, you are responsible for the defendants legal fees.
Sorry, but you seem to think ADEQUATE is the same as certain security, and that’s idiotic and not a winnable argument.
If Cinemark was operating in downtown baghdad during the middle of the 2nd Iraq War.. sure the expectations and needs for security are going to be higher.. but to claim because something bad happened it must because adequate security was not provided is stupid.
If you live and operate in a safe society where something like this is rare and far outside the norm, to expect that a place would provide near bulletproof security to prevent the uncommon is going well above adequate security. Would you go to a movie theater that had metal detectors and required pat downs of every patron entering? Of course not, but that would certainly cut down on the odds of these rare events happening even further... of course they wouldn’t have customers... but that’s another story.
The plantiff’s lost, pure and simple and under the laws of the state they are in they are liable for the defendants legal fees. This is not unreasonable, and is entirely proper to keep folks from using the courts to bleed out those they disagree with... because unlike criminal court, anyone can file a civil action against anyone else for any reason... so making those who file claims against folks and lose being responsible for the legal claims of the defendants is right and proper and keeps the courts from being used as bludgeons by those with axes to grind.
Mebbe they could trade it out in popcorn and sodas. At theater prices it wouldn't take very long. d;^)
On another note, nothin sez ya hafta patronize an establishment that requests disarmament. Don't like it, don't go.
Movies are entertainment, not necessities.
A couple of months after the Aurora shooting there was s similar shooting at a theater in San Antonio, TX.
Didn't hear about it? That's because an off duty sheriff officer pulled out her concealed weapon and shot the shooter after his first shot. No one was injured (except, of course, the perp., and he doesn't count.)
Suppose the shooter had acted OUTSIDE the theater. Would the city then be responsible for security? Or is this the responsibility of the citizens who should be keeping and bearing arms as they have a right to do?
The theater had a no guns policy. Everyone entering would know that they would be helpless in the face of anyone ignoring the policy. The theater made no claim that they would protect the patrons from people who would violate the policy.
If the police had arrested an otherwise law-abiding person inside the theater for unlawful possession of a weapon, what would your verdict be if serving on the jury?
It is my understanding that the only charge possible in such a case would be trespassing and that a person must be warned, asked to leave, and refuse to leave for such a charge to stick.
How many victims were handgun gun owners? How many were licensed to carry.... This isn’t Texas this is CO... my bet is the odds that anyone in that theater that night was a routine firearm carrier who left his gun in his car because of cinemark’s policy is NIL.
I personally haven’t met anyone who carries concealed who voluntarily disarms when they enter an establishment that claims firearms are not allowed, unless it is someplace where they are being search upon entering like a courthouse, or a bar with a problem or something.. most just go about their lives since they are carrying it concealed no one really is there challenging them either.
May not agree with their policies, but unless you want to rewrite the criminal laws to be this way, you aren’t going to see this happen.
It’d be a better deterrence than none at all.
If a business says you cannot come in armed, disarming you, and provides no security for you from harm, they have taken away your ability to defend yourself with equal,force. And are not protdcting you from attackers with greater force.
They ought to be liable. In Wisconsin, they are. And in Wisconsin, if they do not have adequate security, such as not inspecting people for weapons on entry, and no armed securty people, you can ignore their signs to disarm.
Didn’t 2 states make that law just this year?
The appeal is for the jury verdict, right? They cannot appeal paying the legal fess of the defendant can they? But appeal either issue and they will be on the hook for more defendant attorney fees if they lose, correct?
Does the state law require that a bond be posted for the appeal?
If the victim held a ccw and didn’t have one on the that night due to the policy, I’d rule for them. If not, then the policy had no real change and it’s just a matter if security protocols and lapses.
And I am sure if anyone in that theater actually had a concealed carry permit the same thing would have happened in CO... I know no one, no one who carries concealed who voluntarily disarms because of a sign on the wall in a Theater or a Home Depot or anywhere else...
The only places folks who carry are disarming are places where they know they will be searched and refused entry if a weapon is found.
I don’t think you will find one victim in the CO incident that was a concealed carry permit holder... not one.. because it they were, they weren’t likely to just leave the gun in the car because of a plaque on the wall, at best would attempt to be enforced by a teenager with pimples from the popcorn oil.
The theater quite sensibly hired good lawyers to defend itself in a case that would have cost many millions if it had lost. That is, they hired a law firm that is experienced in this kind of case and has a proven track-record of success. The plaintiffs' lawyers knew or should have known this, that they were facing big-league opposition, and should have so advised their clients. That they were good defense lawyers is evidenced by the fact that they actually won the case at trial, and good lawyers charge accordingly--$500++ per hour. Remember that the case actually went to trial, resulting in hundreds of hours of preparation and court-time for that law firm, not to mention forgoing other cases it could have taken instead.
In other words, $700k sounds about right, and the judge--who should know--agreed.
They probably wouldn't have to do much. The mere presence of armed security reduces the likelihood of attack tremendously.
This is why there are so few shootings at police stations and gun shows. Terrorists want to kill a lot of people and they can't do that when the people can shoot back.
I saw a quote the other day along the lines of; "If five percent of ducks could shoot back, duck hunting would quickly become unpopular."
The `English rule’ is that the loser pays the winner’s attorney fees.
Believe Colorado still adheres to the American rule: each side pays their own attorney fees.
If the plaintiff fails to recover more than an amount offered in judgment in a timely manner by defendant, plaintiff can be ordered to pay fees.
The CO statute addresses claims (possibly defenses as well) that lack merit. If so determined, loser can be ordered to pay. All other cases, the American rule still applies.
Many states have this rule: they discourage frivolous claims. suits lacking substantial merit. Their lawyer may be OK if he urged they accept the offer of settlement, but who knows. Sounds like it never should have been filed.
Don’t feel safe in “gun free zones”? Don’t patronize them.
“plaintiff can be ordered to pay fees”= plaintiff can be ordered to pay court costs
I don't know about that. I figure posting a "no guns allowed sign" makes them quite 'liable', as they'd removed the patron's ability to protect themselves, and implicitly accepted liability for their security.
The plaintiffs knew when they filed, they would be liable for legal costs, if they lost.
It was not that way, for just this one case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.