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

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.

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

This is 'Merica, not surprised

[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

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

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...

[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

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.

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

[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

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.

Dumb lawsuit. I hope a judge throws it out.

[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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

[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

[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.

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

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

thegerg

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.

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

[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

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.