Posted on 08/23/2014 12:59:09 PM PDT by chessplayer
The theater refused to allow its patrons to defend themselves by putting up signs that made it illegal for CHL holders to be armed.
They need to be punished financially for such a stupid decision.
Given the “no firearms” signs, it wasn’t inevitable, but clearly an increased likelihood.
The theater refused to allow its patrons to defend themselves by putting up signs that made it illegal for CHL holders to be armed.
They need to be punished financially for such a stupid decision.
So you agree they need to be sued into oblivion. It’s all the theatre owners fault.
“Given the “no firearms” signs, it wasn’t inevitable, but clearly an increased likelihood.”
I carry a small, easily concealed gun. Nobody will know I have it unless I have to use it. In that event I’m guessing nobody will complain that I had it. Even so, my plan it to put it away and walk quietly to the door.
Not sure about other states, but a “no firearms” sign in Washington state will only get you an invitation to leave should you get “caught “ I’ve yet to hear of anyone getting frisked at the front door. Bottom line. Sign or no sign, I carry EVERYWHERE.
I was boggled until I read about the sign.
I am now unboggled. When the owner explicitly refuses to allow customers in his establishment to protect themselves, then he is shouldering the responsibility in their stead, and he failed to protect them.
Wait until ISIS is turned loose on our streets and everyone will be carrying regardless of these stupid laws.
if anything, the patrons should be held responsible... because of mass shootings in other places, they should have foreseen the possibility of a mass shooting... and then to go to a theatre that does not allow firearms, they should have foreseen an even greater possibility of a mass shooting...
On this record, we conclude plaintiffs have failed to establish any triable issue that there was a causal nexus between McDonald's nonfeasance, if any, and the resulting injuries. Any reasonable protective measure such as security cameras, alarms and unarmed security guards, might have deterred ordinary criminal conduct because of the potential of identification and capture, but could not reasonably be expected to deter or hinder a maniacal, suicidal assailant unconcerned with his own safety, bent on committing mass murder.
From the Freeper addenda to the new ICD-10:
321.0 SPLAT Liberal Cerebral Defenestration (LCD) or Liberal Acquired Brain Absence (LABA), Complete loss of rationality, cognition, and cerebration due to indiscriminately keeping one's mind so far open that the brain falls out. First and subsequent encounters.
The fact you are in a theater, sports arena, opera, or whatever, should have no bearing on the liability of the matter. The person who harmed the patrons was NOT the theater owner or management, it was a person with a poor grasp of reality indulging in unreasoned and wanton destruction of life and well-being of others.
The only remotely possible rationalization the judge may have been expressing was trying to assign liability here, based on the likelihood that the owner or management has access to “deep pockets”, while the actual perpetrator, the deranged young man, would have had no such assets.
Sometimes you just have to suck it up, or apply for charity elsewhere. There is no promise that “somebody, somewhere is gonna PAY!”
Rationalization is not prudence. It is sometimes very tortured logic, and does not register well with the realities of the world.
One of my favorite memes I created.
Great. Now there will be metal detectors on every auditorium and church for insurance purposes.
“Noting “the grim history of mass shootings and mass killings that have occurred in more recent times,” U.S. District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson ruled that Cinemark — owner of the Century Aurora 16 theater — could have predicted that movie patrons might be targeted for an attack.”
Based on that concept and ruling, President Obama, who has all the money and all the staff, the NSA, DHS,and the FBI, should have predicted this, and given CINEMARK a ‘heads up’.
All lawsuits should be directed against Obama, before anyone can direct a lawsuit against CINEMARK.
The liberal logic here is inescapable. Since crimes like this have occurred then this type of crime is foreseeable. If the crime is foreseeable then owners of private property are liable. In order to eliminate that liability private property should be eliminated. The crimes will continue but since all property will be gov. property no one will be liable for it. Problem solved!
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
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.