- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 5/9/16 at 8:33 am to 632627
quote:
I've never been to a movie theater that would have had adequate security to stop this attack
That's all about to change.
Posted on 5/9/16 at 8:36 am to Cosmo
quote:
Cant sue the crazy shooter, he has no money. So lets go after the theater.
When Columbine happened, those parents were held liable for their sons' actions.
I guess the difference here is the age, the shooter was 24. If the shooter had been 17, would the parents have been liable?
Speaking of, I had never seen parents being held liable until Columbine and Adam Lanza.
Posted on 5/9/16 at 8:39 am to Cosmo
quote:
More lawsuits like this and going to a theater or sports stadium will have airport like security.
My brother's graduation was in Gillette Stadium. You couldn't bring in any shoulder bags. The contents of my son's diaper bag had to be distributed between multiple gallon sized ziplock bags. Everyone had to go through metal detectors. It was an absolutely miserable experience.
Posted on 5/9/16 at 8:39 am to Cosmo
I actually agree that places that claim to be "gun free zones" should take some steps to actually ensure that they are "gun free".
Posted on 5/9/16 at 8:40 am to Cosmo
12 dumbasses will grant them a huge award
Posted on 5/9/16 at 8:46 am to RollTide1987
quote:
How often is it you walk into a movie theater and see armed police?
Every time I go to the movies?
All of Baton Rouge theaters have cops out fromt and one or two inside drinking free drinks.
Posted on 5/9/16 at 8:50 am to Cosmo
Why I agree with you it seems someone always wants to get paid from a tragedy, there are several people who still are having medical complications from this tragedy and the bills are likely adding up and becoming difficult to pay.
Look at the girl from here who was shot. She still is having medical issues to this day and likely will always have something to be taken care of for the rest of her life.
The families trying to get paid who lost their loved ones I do not agree with, but I can understand to a level the ones having medical bills adding up over the last few years because of this incident.
Look at the girl from here who was shot. She still is having medical issues to this day and likely will always have something to be taken care of for the rest of her life.
The families trying to get paid who lost their loved ones I do not agree with, but I can understand to a level the ones having medical bills adding up over the last few years because of this incident.
Posted on 5/9/16 at 8:56 am to Rabbs and QStick
So since they have medical bills, they should start suing everyone possible? Logical thought right there
Posted on 5/9/16 at 8:57 am to X123F45
quote:
Every time I go to the movies?
All of Baton Rouge theaters have cops out fromt and one or two inside drinking free drinks.
CSB:
I saw some chick get shot in the calf at Citiplace theater in Baton Rouge in like the 8th or 9th grade on a weekend night.
Guy in an airbrushed "Valley" hooded sweatshirt tried to rip her purse off her arm and she wasn't having it and he pulled a gun and shot downwards at her leg and she dropped the purse and he ran.
Cops were there and chased him but I have no idea what happened.
WE ARE B.R.!
Posted on 5/9/16 at 9:07 am to Hammertime
I never said that I agreed with it. I'm saying I would imagine this is thought process for some, and it's understandable to a point when this guy was able to plan this out the way he did by observing the theater.
Little things like a alarm on the door he propped up open could have prevented this possibly.
ETA: I don't agree with holding the theater liable, I am just trying to get people to see it from another view to.
No one expects a $30 night out at the movie to turn into $50k or more medical bills, so if they believe there is some negligence by the theater I do get why they are trying, but do not agree the theater should be held entirely liable for this.
Little things like a alarm on the door he propped up open could have prevented this possibly.
ETA: I don't agree with holding the theater liable, I am just trying to get people to see it from another view to.
No one expects a $30 night out at the movie to turn into $50k or more medical bills, so if they believe there is some negligence by the theater I do get why they are trying, but do not agree the theater should be held entirely liable for this.
This post was edited on 5/9/16 at 9:14 am
Posted on 5/9/16 at 9:12 am to udtiger
quote:
However, this was the first.
No it wasn't the first theater shooting, though it was the first mass shooting. In 1994(Schindler's List - San Diego) and again in 2004 (X-Men Last Stand - Boston) someone randomly shot a single theater goer. There were also incidents of gang related shootings and shootings related to altercation documented as far back as 1979.
Even so, the theater cannot foresee the act of a madman, if they have any culpability, it is in the ease with which the nut job was able to use the exit doors to get his arms into the theater. Even that is a thin legal argument, though civil juries often seem to devoid of logic these days.
Posted on 5/9/16 at 9:14 am to TigerattheU
quote:
Cinemark's corporate headquarters received broad warning from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that movie theaters might be targeted by terrorists.
Those "broad warnings" usually state that any public place where people are gathered might be targeted.
That's why they're broad.
By this lawsuit's logic, any place where more than a few people are gathered should have armed security.
frick this country if this case goes to trial.
Posted on 5/9/16 at 9:31 am to Scooba
quote:
Are they admitting that a "GUN FREE ZONE" sign on the door didn't work? Criminals broke the law? Whaaaaaa??
Gun Free Zones are basically an invitation to thugs and terrorists. I don't agree with the law suit but in an age of terrorism, all public forums should be protected with armed security.
Posted on 5/9/16 at 9:34 am to Cosmo
quote:
Pathetic. Something bad happens to a loved one and you want to get paid.
Cant sue the crazy shooter, he has no money. So lets go after the theater.
More lawsuits like this and going to a theater or sports stadium will have airport like security.
I don't like this either, but this is standard operating procedure when it comes to suing. You sue everyone and let the judge figure it out.
Posted on 5/9/16 at 9:46 am to X123F45
quote:
Every time I go to the movies?
I guess it's just the small town that I come from, but I had never seen armed police posted inside a theater until I moved to Aurora in 2013. And even then the police were only stationed at the theater where the shooting happened.
Granted I have seen police sitting out in the parking lot in their squad cars before. But I had never seen police actively standing guard INSIDE a theater until Aurora.
Posted on 5/9/16 at 9:59 am to crazycubes
And hope someone settles
Posted on 5/9/16 at 10:23 am to Cosmo
Sounds like something Rex would do. Stupid dog.
Posted on 5/9/16 at 10:39 am to Cosmo
If a private company is going to claim their property is a "gun free zone", they better start thinking twice about if they can truly back that claim up. Why would the doors not be alarmed? You would think they would have a delay and alarm if they are open for more than 10-15 seconds.
Posted on 9/1/16 at 10:39 am to Cosmo
LINK
So the survivors who sued will have to repay Cinemark $700k for bringing suit and losing.
Meanwhile, the judge had advised them to take a settlement and avoid the $700k bill. They said no.
So the survivors who sued will have to repay Cinemark $700k for bringing suit and losing.
Meanwhile, the judge had advised them to take a settlement and avoid the $700k bill. They said no.
quote:
But the judge also warned that if they rejected the settlement and lost, they’d be hit with the heavy legal costs. “Either seek justice and go into debt, or take that pitiful offering of money and the improved public safety,” Weaver told the Times.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News