Do you think Cinemark should be sued over that mass shooting?

  • 130 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by sonicare (53451 posts) -

I was just watching then news the other day, and they mentioned how several families in Aurora, Colorado are suing Cinemark over the deaths of their loved ones. While I think that shooting was awful, I'm not sure why they are suing the theatre company. I suppose that Cinemark could have installed armed guards at every door and had metal detectors at every entrance, but is that really practical? Could anyone have anticipated something like this? I can understand expecting a business to provide a safe environment - but that usually deals with hazards on the grounds. Something external like this crazy shooter couldnt have been anticipated. If you're expected to prepare for the unexpected, than I think most theatres are woefully underprepared for a potential meteor strike or godzilla attack.

#2 Posted by Maniacc1 (5354 posts) -
Yeah, I don't see how Cinemark could be at fault for this. Protecting against mass shootings isn't a major component of running a movie theatre. A general sense of safety and security, yes. But there's no way this could have been prevented without armed police at every corner.
#3 Posted by Toxic-Seahorse (4118 posts) -
No. It's just as pathetic as the family that is suing for the school shooting. Pathetic people trying to cash in on a tragedy.
#4 Posted by sonicare (53451 posts) -
No. It's just as pathetic as the family that is suing for the school shooting. Pathetic people trying to cash in on a tragedy.Toxic-Seahorse
I dont think they are pathetic. I think it's just misdirected anger. They are looking for someone to blame in a senseless tragedy.
#5 Posted by DaBrainz (7628 posts) -
They should only be sued if they prevented somebody from carrying a gun in to protect themselves.
#6 Posted by Chris_Williams (14874 posts) -

This is 'Merica, not surprised

#7 Posted by Laihendi (5810 posts) -
That's ridiculous. The shooter is responsible for the deaths of those people, not the theatre company.
#8 Posted by Toxic-Seahorse (4118 posts) -
[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]No. It's just as pathetic as the family that is suing for the school shooting. Pathetic people trying to cash in on a tragedy.sonicare
I dont think they are pathetic. I think it's just misdirected anger. They are looking for someone to blame in a senseless tragedy.

I guess there really is no way of knowing their intentions but I find it hard to believe that they cannot think about this rationally. I'm not sure about who is suing the theater but the peopel suing for the school shooting didn't lose their daughter. They have no reason to sue for the 100 million they did other than trying to cash in on the tragedy. Perhaps the lawyers are more to blame for actually taking these cases. I really hope all these cases get thrown out of court. But then again, people have won lawsuits of stupider things.
#9 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
:lol: People want financial compensation from a company that had absolutely no role in the death of those people? Wut? Come on... blame the guy who shot them.
#10 Posted by Abbeten (2803 posts) -
i guess whether or not they decide to sue is up to them. i think they should be allowed to bring suit, sure. i also think they should lose.
#11 Posted by Ingenemployee (2307 posts) -

False advertisement I'm guessing. The theater was supposed to be a gun free zone. /terrible joke.

#12 Posted by johnd13 (7994 posts) -

Why don' t people just learn to blame the real culprit? How could anyone think it was the theater' s fault? In this logic the producers of the movie were responsible as well. Oh God...

#13 Posted by jsmoke03 (12766 posts) -
[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]No. It's just as pathetic as the family that is suing for the school shooting. Pathetic people trying to cash in on a tragedy.sonicare
I dont think they are pathetic. I think it's just misdirected anger. They are looking for someone to blame in a senseless tragedy.

blame or a cash in? funerals aren't cheap
#14 Posted by dagreenfish (1817 posts) -
No, the theatre is not culpable.
#15 Posted by dercoo (12555 posts) -

Depends... were they a posted no carry zone that forbid lawful citizens from caring firearms for self defence with no security in exchange?

If so, maybe.

If you post, post guards.

#16 Posted by MrGeezer (56131 posts) -

Depends... were they a posted no carry zone that forbid lawful citizens from caring firearms for self defence with no security in exchange?

If so, maybe.

If you post, post guards.

dercoo
I'm pretty sure it's private property. If they don't want guns on their property, then no guns on their property. If anyone left their guns at home because it's a "no carry zone", then that's on them. They knew it was a no carry zone and still chose to go in.
#17 Posted by thegerg (14860 posts) -

Why don' t people just learn to blame the real culprit? How could anyone think it was the theater' s fault? In this logic the producers of the movie were responsible as well. Oh God...

johnd13
Because it's scary for some people to think that there are just mean, crazy, or evil people out there that are unpredictable and want to hurt others. It's easier to blame a theater, a gun maker, or a videogame than think that some people just want to watch the world burn.
#18 Posted by arcangelgold (96 posts) -
To my knowledge there is no tort for which they have any grounds to sue Cinemark, it sounds to me like unfortunately the parents are poor and want a free money train. I realize it's upsetting when something like this happens and that the parents are in shock and may not have the money for burials and monuments for their loved ones, but seriously I think the case will be dismissed. It's not the responsibility of any one or any business to make you safe from unknown unanticipated dangers. Their only legal responsibility is to make sure they don't endanger you with an obvious issue in their establishment, for example: a broken step.
#19 Posted by dercoo (12555 posts) -

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

Depends... were they a posted no carry zone that forbid lawful citizens from caring firearms for self defence with no security in exchange?

If so, maybe.

If you post, post guards.

MrGeezer

I'm pretty sure it's private property. If they don't want guns on their property, then no guns on their property. If anyone left their guns at home because it's a "no carry zone", then that's on them. They knew it was a no carry zone and still chose to go in.

They forced clients to give up the right to defend themselves, but offered no security on exchange.

If it was not posted, then the clients are in charge of their own security (and lack there of)

If its posted the business is incharge if customer safety.

They posted, but failed to provide adequate safety for their customers.

#20 Posted by thegerg (14860 posts) -

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="dercoo"]

Depends... were they a posted no carry zone that forbid lawful citizens from caring firearms for self defence with no security in exchange?

If so, maybe.

If you post, post guards.

dercoo

I'm pretty sure it's private property. If they don't want guns on their property, then no guns on their property. If anyone left their guns at home because it's a "no carry zone", then that's on them. They knew it was a no carry zone and still chose to go in.

They forced clients to give up the right to defend themselves, but offered no security on exchange.

If it was not posted, then the clients are in charge of their own security (and lack there of)

If its posted the buisness is incharge if customer safety.

No one was forced to give up the right to defend themselves.
#21 Posted by Wasdie (49631 posts) -

Dumb lawsuit. I hope a judge throws it out.

#22 Posted by FMAB_GTO (14385 posts) -
Blaming the scene of crime? No just no...
#23 Posted by Abbeten (2803 posts) -

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="dercoo"]

Depends... were they a posted no carry zone that forbid lawful citizens from caring firearms for self defence with no security in exchange?

If so, maybe.

If you post, post guards.

dercoo

I'm pretty sure it's private property. If they don't want guns on their property, then no guns on their property. If anyone left their guns at home because it's a "no carry zone", then that's on them. They knew it was a no carry zone and still chose to go in.

They forced clients to give up the right to defend themselves, but offered no security on exchange.

If it was not posted, then the clients are in charge of their own security (and lack there of)

If its posted the business is incharge if customer safety.

They posted, but failed to provide adequate safety for their customers.

they made the terms of entering their own property. the customers had the choice not to take their business to the theater in the first place.
#24 Posted by punkpunker (3321 posts) -

i dont see the point to sue Cinemark, unless they are directly involved like guns were knowingly stashed ahead of time and an employee used it.

#25 Posted by CJL13 (19137 posts) -

The people who died should be sued because they wouldn't have died had they not gone to see the movie. Sounds just as stupid as this lawsuit.

#26 Posted by Aljosa23 (24755 posts) -

Should they? Naw. That said, I don't blame the families for sueing.

#27 Posted by thebest31406 (3323 posts) -
Misguided anger? Maybe but I find it interesting that the relatives of the victims would rather sue a company which shares virtually no responsibility than to take action against the ones that are clearly responsible; namely that gun manufacture/s.
#28 Posted by thegerg (14860 posts) -
Misguided anger? Maybe but I find it interesting that the relatives of the victims would rather sue a company which shares virtually no responsibility than to take action against the ones that are clearly responsible; namely that gun manufacture/s. thebest31406
This is a joke, right? The one that is clearly responsible is the shooter, not the gun makers or the theater.
#29 Posted by pianist (18899 posts) -

You know, there are few things I find more despicable than people trying to cash in on a tragedy. Families of victims or not, this is absolutely ridiculous on the surface. But there may be details we don't know about, like in the case of the lady who scalded herself with McDonald's coffee, so I'll reserve judgement until the full story emerges.

#30 Posted by thegerg (14860 posts) -

Should they? Naw. That said, I don't blame the families for sueing.

Aljosa23
Then who do you blame? They're the ones doing it.
#31 Posted by VoodooHak (15981 posts) -

Signs are posted prominently in every Cinemark box office: "Guns Prohibited" with the handy dandy picture of a gun with a circle around it and a slash through it.

So the inference is that if guns are prohibited at a location, that the owners would provide adequate security.

Note also that there were at least 7 theatres within a few miles of his home. And only one was a gun free zone. Guess which one he chose? It wasn't the closest or the most populated. It was the one where people were least capable of defending themselves. Unfortunately we can't confirm since the shooter isn't around to ask if he targeted this one theater specifically.

#32 Posted by lamprey263 (23195 posts) -
no, there's no way they could have known something like this could happen, and this can happen anywhere people gather at, malls, sporting events, public gatherings, religious services, schools, whereever, so say in response all theaters are like going through the airport, someone is going to take their shooting rampages elsewhere and there's lots to pick from, and not to diminish the life that was lost then but in some ways I guess things could have been a lot worse considering how armed to the teeth the shooter was
#33 Posted by dercoo (12555 posts) -

Signs are posted prominently in every Cinemark box office: "Guns Prohibited" with the handy dandy picture of a gun with a circle around it and a slash through it.

So the inference is that if guns are prohibited at a location, that the owners would provide adequate security.

Note also that there were at least 7 theatres within a few miles of his home. And only one was a gun free zone. Guess which one he chose? It wasn't the closest or the most populated. It was the one where people were least capable of defending themselves. Unfortunately we can't confirm since the shooter isn't around to ask if he targeted this one theater specifically.

VoodooHak

He is still around though.

Until his suicide attempts succeed.

#34 Posted by Palantas (15321 posts) -

You need two theatres, right next to each other. One is a normal theatre. The other has guards who are all ex-military, armed with SMGs, wearing body armor, who run checkpoints and metal detectors. In this theatre, the tickets cost $90 ($105 for 3D movies, you smucks).

You choose which one you attend.

#35 Posted by toast_burner (21450 posts) -

So if someone gets killed in front of my house am I responsible?

#36 Posted by kingkong0124 (8710 posts) -

So if someone gets killed in front of my house am I responsible?

toast_burner

Horrible analogy. Also - don't go in the U.S. Marines thread...you might get mad.

#37 Posted by thebest31406 (3323 posts) -
[QUOTE="thebest31406"]Misguided anger? Maybe but I find it interesting that the relatives of the victims would rather sue a company which shares virtually no responsibility than to take action against the ones that are clearly responsible; namely that gun manufacture/s. thegerg
This is a joke, right? The one that is clearly responsible is the shooter, not the gun makers or the theater.

The gunman is more than responsible, he's to blame. I just don't understand how victims could invoke responsibility on a cinema complex instead of the ones that manufactured the weapons in the first place. I mean a full size AR-15 with round drum, Remington 870 12-gague pump, .40 Caliber Glock? How is it that civilians can get their hands on such arms?
#38 Posted by VoodooHak (15981 posts) -

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

Signs are posted prominently in every Cinemark box office: "Guns Prohibited" with the handy dandy picture of a gun with a circle around it and a slash through it.

So the inference is that if guns are prohibited at a location, that the owners would provide adequate security.

Note also that there were at least 7 theatres within a few miles of his home. And only one was a gun free zone. Guess which one he chose? It wasn't the closest or the most populated. It was the one where people were least capable of defending themselves. Unfortunately we can't confirm since the shooter isn't around to ask if he targeted this one theater specifically.

dercoo

He is still around though.

Until his suicide attempts succeed.

My bad. I got confused with the Sandy Hook shooter.

#39 Posted by thegerg (14860 posts) -

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="thebest31406"]Misguided anger? Maybe but I find it interesting that the relatives of the victims would rather sue a company which shares virtually no responsibility than to take action against the ones that are clearly responsible; namely that gun manufacture/s. thebest31406
This is a joke, right? The one that is clearly responsible is the shooter, not the gun makers or the theater.

The gunman is more than responsible, he's to blame. I just don't understand how victims could invoke responsibility on a cinema complex instead of the ones that manufactured the weapons in the first place. I mean a full size AR-15 with round drum, Remington 870 12-gague pump, .40 Caliber Glock? How is it that civilians can get their hands on such arms?

They certainly are unreasonable to place responsibility on the theater, but they would be just as unreasonable to do the same towards gun manufacturers.

"I mean a full size AR-15 with round drum, Remington 870 12-gague pump, .40 Caliber Glock? "

This question makes no sense. Hire an English tutor.

"How is it that civilians can get their hands on such arms?"

Do a little research, you can do it from your computer right now. You'll find your answer. If you're blaming the gun makers for that, you're looking in the wrong place.

Anyway, it's no more the fault of the gun makers than the theater.

#40 Posted by Toph_Girl250 (47571 posts) -
If you ask me it looks like a lot of completely waaay unexpected worst-scenario shooting crap happened last year, let's also not forget that December shooting. Here's an idea, let's blame the evil year that was. Except mass shootings happen every year... still.. maybe not shootings as big a scale on the unbelievably horrifying level that was the theater and Elementary School shooting.
#41 Posted by thebest31406 (3323 posts) -
[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="thegerg"] This is a joke, right? The one that is clearly responsible is the shooter, not the gun makers or the theater.

The gunman is more than responsible, he's to blame. I just don't understand how victims could invoke responsibility on a cinema complex instead of the ones that manufactured the weapons in the first place. I mean a full size AR-15 with round drum, Remington 870 12-gague pump, .40 Caliber Glock? How is it that civilians can get their hands on such arms?

They certainly are unreasonable to place responsibility on the theater, but they would be just as unreasonable to do the same towards gun manufacturers. "I mean a full size AR-15 with round drum, Remington 870 12-gague pump, .40 Caliber Glock? " This question makes no sense. Hire an English tutor.

loool. Are you mad?
#42 Posted by thegerg (14860 posts) -
[QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="thebest31406"] The gunman is more than responsible, he's to blame. I just don't understand how victims could invoke responsibility on a cinema complex instead of the ones that manufactured the weapons in the first place. I mean a full size AR-15 with round drum, Remington 870 12-gague pump, .40 Caliber Glock? How is it that civilians can get their hands on such arms?

They certainly are unreasonable to place responsibility on the theater, but they would be just as unreasonable to do the same towards gun manufacturers. "I mean a full size AR-15 with round drum, Remington 870 12-gague pump, .40 Caliber Glock? " This question makes no sense. Hire an English tutor.

loool. Are you mad?

No. I'm quite sane, I'm not the one suggesting that a tool manufacturer be held responsible for the misuse of their products.
#43 Posted by thebest31406 (3323 posts) -
[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="thegerg"] They certainly are unreasonable to place responsibility on the theater, but they would be just as unreasonable to do the same towards gun manufacturers. "I mean a full size AR-15 with round drum, Remington 870 12-gague pump, .40 Caliber Glock? " This question makes no sense. Hire an English tutor.

loool. Are you mad?

No. I'm quite sane, I'm not the one suggesting that a tool manufacturer be held responsible for the misuse of their products.

Eh? What are you British or something? "Mad" as in 'angry' 'hostile'
#44 Posted by Aljosa23 (24755 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

Should they? Naw. That said, I don't blame the families for sueing.

thegerg

Then who do you blame? They're the ones doing it.

Don't be silly, you know what I meant.

I wouldn't condemn for it since they lost their child and want to get something out of it. They'll lose the suit anyway.

#45 Posted by thegerg (14860 posts) -
[QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="thebest31406"] loool. Are you mad?

No. I'm quite sane, I'm not the one suggesting that a tool manufacturer be held responsible for the misuse of their products.

Eh? What are you British or something? "Mad" as in 'angry' 'hostile'

I thought that that may have been what you meant at fist, but there was nothing in my post that would lead a reasonable person to believe that I'm at all upset, so I had to assume that's not what you meant.
#46 Posted by TheFallenDemon (13932 posts) -

This is all Nolan's fault for making the movie the victims went to see, he should be the one they're suing.

The events in Aurora proved that movie premieres are as great a causer of violence as video games and rap music and thus, MUST BE BANNED

#47 Posted by Toph_Girl250 (47571 posts) -
Some suing cases are actually legit, but I don't think this one is.
#48 Posted by VoodooHak (15981 posts) -

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="thebest31406"]Misguided anger? Maybe but I find it interesting that the relatives of the victims would rather sue a company which shares virtually no responsibility than to take action against the ones that are clearly responsible; namely that gun manufacture/s. thebest31406
This is a joke, right? The one that is clearly responsible is the shooter, not the gun makers or the theater.

The gunman is more than responsible, he's to blame. I just don't understand how victims could invoke responsibility on a cinema complex instead of the ones that manufactured the weapons in the first place. I mean a full size AR-15 with round drum, Remington 870 12-gague pump, .40 Caliber Glock? How is it that civilians can get their hands on such arms?

Why shouldn't civilians have access to those firearms? Do the manufacturer or model names scare you? Or are there specific features you'd like to point out that you have a problem with? Is it ammo capacity? Is it the oh-so-intimidating pump action?

I hope you understand that it takes only half a second to eject a magazine and replace it with a fresh one. That means the pump action shotgun has a much slower rate of fire.... which should be ok then, right?

Is it the size of the bullet? A 556 or 223 round that the typical AR takes or the .40 cal round aren't as powerful as the .308 of an old fashioned bolt action hunting rifle. So is a .308 ok?

Help me understand what you find so sinister about these guns.

#49 Posted by thebest31406 (3323 posts) -
[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="thegerg"] No. I'm quite sane, I'm not the one suggesting that a tool manufacturer be held responsible for the misuse of their products.

Eh? What are you British or something? "Mad" as in 'angry' 'hostile'

I thought that that may have been what you meant at fist, but there was nothing in my post that would lead a reasonable person to believe that I'm at all upset, so I had to assume that's not what you meant.

Of course you're mad "See an English tutor" Getting all ad hominem on me just because of my view on the matter. You're mad.
#50 Posted by thegerg (14860 posts) -
[QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="thebest31406"] Eh? What are you British or something? "Mad" as in 'angry' 'hostile'

I thought that that may have been what you meant at fist, but there was nothing in my post that would lead a reasonable person to believe that I'm at all upset, so I had to assume that's not what you meant.

Of course you're mad "See an English tutor" Getting all ad hominem on me just because of my view on the matter. You're mad.

You seem to be very confused. I'm simply recommending that you take steps to make your posts more readable. It would help you get your point across easier. No one here is mad.