Was the Aurora theater shooting “foreseeable” by owners?

Hotair ^

[Cold Heat]

LOL....that’s more leftist insanity...

[Cold Heat]

By the way, this has zero to do with the “no Guns sign”.

[latina4dubya]

The pateons obeyed the law. The theater owner disarmed them. The theater owner, and other negligent establishments who disarm their patrons, should be sued out of business.

i know that... what i am saying is they should not have gone to that theater--knowing that they could not protect themselves if there were a mass shooting...

[Jack Hammer]

It sure as h*ll boggles MY mind.

Madness; absolute madness.

[UCANSEE2]

If only the government had left this woman on the air, we'd be safe.

[ColdSteelTalon]

I agree with you completely. The theater is responsible for its policy that denies its patrons the ability to defend themselves.

[chessplayer]

Hopefully a few big settlements (and thus a boost in liability insurance rates) will help convince business owners

---

Uh,,,they will pass on those increased rates to the customers through increased prices for products. But sue em anyway. The theater owner was as guilty of murdering those people as the actual shooter. Shouldn’t the theater owner be spending life in prison?

[School of Rational Thought]

Given the “no firearms” signs, it wasn’t inevitable, but clearly an increased likelihood.

In this case the business made a conscious decision to prevent someone from reasonably being able to protect themselves in a situation they clearly considered. Frankly, laws placing liability on those businesses should be pursued. It is a logical counterbalance against Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.

[School of Rational Thought]

These businesses are consciously considering the question, if a shooter starts shooting up the place, do we want any of our patrons to be armed?

By declaring know, they have unreasonably put their patrons in more danger.

[chessplayer]

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.

---

And if he wasn’t permitted to allow guns because of federal, state, or local laws? Then they’re still screwed. They’re in a no-win situation. So we need big, surly, rent-a-cops with metal detectors and rubber gloves in every theater ready to feel up the crotch of every customer and prowling the aisles? How about supermarkets, public parks, mega-churches?

[TigersEye]

The basic reasoning behind this legal decision has nothing to do with Gun Free Zones. It's based on liability due to foreknowledge. Signs or no signs it would put all owners of private property in jeopardy.

This is a socialist/communist wet dream.

[glock rocks]

The last line of that sign states: unless you have a carry permit. The UCA (Utah Code Annotated) reference is to the concealed firearms act, 53-5-701.

That sign must be on a theatre in Utah?

[trebb]

When you go to see a movie at the theater, you – as a patron – have a few reasonable expectations.

Popcorn and soda will break your wallet. It will be too cold. Floor will be sticky. Someone will be making noise. If a cellphone is used, management will ask them to leave. If everyone but the bad guy obeys the "No Weapons" sign, then you will be at the mercy of the bad guy.