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

The US ranks number 5 in Homicide Rates by Firearm, right up there with the most violent Latin American countries, well above any western country. Just look a the bi-monthly gun massacres that took place in 2012. Yeah, I'd say 'more than usual'

thebest31406

Ah, so you do just read the news and then make up trends. If homicide rates are going up, then you need data saying they are going up. I can't believe I have to point this out.

The "most violent Latin American countries" have overal homicide rates ten times that of the United States. Several European countries have overall higher violent crime rates than the US. Yay, let's compare arbitrary points of data, then point to an arbitrary cause without establishing any correlation.

The purpose of a gun? To kill or at the very least, put someone or something down....or am I wrong?

thebest31406

Yes, you're wrong. That is not the sole purpose of firearms.

Remington used the word tactical to describe that shotgun. Another member confirmed that the Rifle was as well. So take it up with them.

thebest31406

I think I'll take it up with you, since you're the one here using terms you don't understand. At least I think you don't. Describe your tactical experience and education. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

[QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="thegerg"] Are you also for simply the reducing of gun usage? thegerg

I'm all for gun control, but it seemed earlier that you were (well, it didn't SEEM this way, you actually did) claiming guns were too dangerous for civilians to use. You now seem to believe that that is not the case (as you wish to simply reduce gun use, not eliminate it).

All told, there have been about four last year. You can't have four massacres in one year and and continue life as normal. Some heavy restrictions are required.thebest31406

How many people were killed in these masacres? I'm curious as to what sort of bodycount necessitates "heavy restrictions" on the entire population. Your chances of being killed with a rifle in the US are about four times less likely than your chances of being struck by lightning. We don't heavily restrict people's freedoms based on lightning strikes.

[QUOTE="thebest31406"]All told, there have been about four last year. You can't have four massacres in one year and and continue life as normal. Some heavy restrictions are required.Palantas

How many people were killed in these masacres? I'm curious as to what sort of bodycount necessitates "heavy restrictions" on the entire population. Your chances of being killed with a rifle in the US are about four times less likely than your chances of being struck by lightning. We don't heavily restrict people's freedoms based on lightning strikes.

Not only that, but there are at least one of these ideas at play in thebest31406's posts:

1. Guns caused the shootings - This makes no sense because they are inaminate objects and requires a person to use them
2. Restricting the availability of guns will reduce the amount of gun deaths - There is absolutely no proof that this is(or has ever been) the case. What case studies or research is this hypothesis based on? Shouldn't we base national policy on something more than fear and emotion?

Don't think my initial reaction with the death of a loved one would be to sue someone. Would feel bad about myself.

Better call Saul.

No. I don't really see how it was their fault.

"Among other allegations, the suit says the theater failed to provide security personnel for the midnight screening of "The Dark Knight Rises," the exterior doors to the theater did not have any alarm or security system that would have alerted the staff that "someone had surreptitiously left the theater"or that the door in the back of theater was being kept open.

The suit also states that there was no system in place for the theater staff to monitor parking areas and external doors behind the theater.

The multiplex also been the site of previous incidents, including a shooting involving gang members.

"Any person who wished to make a surreptitious and unauthorized entry into the theater could easily determine that the lack of security personnel and lack of any alarm on the door at the right ... would allow them to leave the theater, and re-enter without fear of being discovered, interfered with, monitored or stopped,'' according to the suit.

The action was filed by two victims of the shooting, Denise Traynom and Brandon Axelrod, who suffered non-critical gunshot wounds to the buttocks and right knee and ankle, respectively. They are seeking unspecified damages for their injuries.

A second lawsuit containing similar allegations was filed Friday by another victim, Joshua Nowlan, who was shot in his right arm and left leg.

Cinemark representatives could not be reached for comment."

There is some meat to it...The doors did not have any system in place and considering it has been the site of previous incidents...i bet they settle out with a huge check..

"Among other allegations, the suit says the theater failed to provide security personnel for the midnight screening of "The Dark Knight Rises," the exterior doors to the theater did not have any alarm or security system that would have alerted the staff that "someone had surreptitiously left the theater"or that the door in the back of theater was being kept open.

The suit also states that there was no system in place for the theater staff to monitor parking areas and external doors behind the theater.

The multiplex also been the site of previous incidents, including a shooting involving gang members.

"Any person who wished to make a surreptitious and unauthorized entry into the theater could easily determine that the lack of security personnel and lack of any alarm on the door at the right ... would allow them to leave the theater, and re-enter without fear of being discovered, interfered with, monitored or stopped,'' according to the suit.

The action was filed by two victims of the shooting, Denise Traynom and Brandon Axelrod, who suffered non-critical gunshot wounds to the buttocks and right knee and ankle, respectively. They are seeking unspecified damages for their injuries.

A second lawsuit containing similar allegations was filed Friday by another victim, Joshua Nowlan, who was shot in his right arm and left leg.

Cinemark representatives could not be reached for comment."

There is some meat to it...The doors did not have any system in place and considering it has been the site of previous incidents...i bet they settle out with a huge check..

masiisam

:|

*****, at the very least who ever was incharge of that theater deserves to be fired.

These cases (the case?) will be dismissed. They cannot be held liable for a man sneaking his gear in through the back of one of the theaters.

I dont like the implications of this either. I think most people here do not want to go through TSA like security everytime they go to see a movie. The world is a place full of unexpected risk. Certainly things can be done to cut some of the risk, but in the end, we still have to accept that living in the modern world still carries some risk. No one can make all that go away. And more importantly, I'd rather not give up all my liberties in order to try.

The action was filed by two victims of the shooting, Denise Traynom and Brandon Axelrod, who suffered non-critical gunshot wounds to the buttocks and right knee and ankle, respectively. They are seeking unspecified damages for their injuries.

A second lawsuit containing similar allegations was filed Friday by another victim, Joshua Nowlanmasiisam

These people deserve money but claiming that Cinemark should be responsible goes to far. As holding Cinemark responsible is making the assumption that the absence of protection played a role in the motive of the killer to enter the building. If this is true, than the mass murderer would just move on to a different unprotected place. Which in turn requires every single place to be protected in order to prevent lawsuits.
However as I mentioned before, the victims deserve compensation as their life will be influenced by the attacks. For example due to physical disabilities. How about raising a small tax on every pack of bullets, which goes to innocent victims of random shootings.

[QUOTE="masiisam"]

"Among other allegations, the suit says the theater failed to provide security personnel for the midnight screening of "The Dark Knight Rises," the exterior doors to the theater did not have any alarm or security system that would have alerted the staff that "someone had surreptitiously left the theater"or that the door in the back of theater was being kept open.

The suit also states that there was no system in place for the theater staff to monitor parking areas and external doors behind the theater.

The multiplex also been the site of previous incidents, including a shooting involving gang members.

"Any person who wished to make a surreptitious and unauthorized entry into the theater could easily determine that the lack of security personnel and lack of any alarm on the door at the right ... would allow them to leave the theater, and re-enter without fear of being discovered, interfered with, monitored or stopped,'' according to the suit.

The action was filed by two victims of the shooting, Denise Traynom and Brandon Axelrod, who suffered non-critical gunshot wounds to the buttocks and right knee and ankle, respectively. They are seeking unspecified damages for their injuries.

A second lawsuit containing similar allegations was filed Friday by another victim, Joshua Nowlan, who was shot in his right arm and left leg.

Cinemark representatives could not be reached for comment."

There is some meat to it...The doors did not have any system in place and considering it has been the site of previous incidents...i bet they settle out with a huge check..

dercoo

:|

*****, at the very least who ever was incharge of that theater deserves to be fired.

I fully agree...i think its crap....at the same time.. this will change things.. i bet right now as we speak all the doors are getting retrofitted and maybe ...just maybe it will make it a little harder to do next time..

[QUOTE="rastotm"]

These people deserve money but claiming that Cinemark should be responsible goes to far. As holding Cinemark responsible is making the assumption that the absence of protection played a role in the motive of the killer to enter the building. If this is true, than the mass murderer would just move on to a different unprotected place. Which in turn requires every single place to be protected in order to prevent lawsuits.
However as I mentioned before, the victims deserve compensation as their life will be influenced by the attacks. For example due to physical disabilities. How about raising a small tax on every pack of bullets, which goes to innocent victims of random shootings.

thegerg

These people deserve money but claiming that Cinemark should be responsible goes to far. As holding Cinemark responsible is making the assumption that the absence of protection played a role in the motive of the killer to enter the building. If this is true, than the mass murderer would just move on to a different unprotected place. Which in turn requires every single place to be protected in order to prevent lawsuits.
However as I mentioned before, the victims deserve compensation as their life will be influenced by the attacks. For example due to physical disabilities. How about raising a small tax on every pack of bullets, which goes to innocent victims of random shootings.

rastotm

[QUOTE="rastotm"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] Why is the responsibility of the state to pay?thegerg

Keep in mind that there is a difference between leaving victims to "rot" and not paying them for the loss causd by another citizen. There are already mechanisms in place to care for those that can't care for themselves (Medicare, foodstamp programs, etc.).

[QUOTE="rastotm"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] It's not the state's job, however, to pay reparations to citizens because of the actions of another citizen. If that were the case there would be no need for car insurance.

Keep in mind that there is a difference between leaving victims to "rot" and not paying them for the loss causd by another citizen. There are already mechanisms in place to care for those that can't care for themselves (Medicare, foodstamp programs, etc.).

thegerg

how is Cinemark involved in this?