• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Colorado Shootings: 1st Dark Knight Lawsuit Filed [W:90]

EagleAye said:
I'm trying to imagine how he would pay.

Maybe, instead of spraying perfume into rabbits' eyes to see if it hurts (how mean to the wittle bunny!), we could spray it into his? He could become the primary tester for all perfume manufacturers.
Click to expand...

No, I have a better idea. Make him a medical research project. Find out what causes these mental breakdowns at any cost. I don't care if they have to saw his head open, and dissect his brain.
 
Lokiate said:
No, I have a better idea. Make him a medical research project. Find out what causes these mental breakdowns at any cost. I don't care if they have to saw his head open, and dissect his brain.
Click to expand...

Could work. He won't be needing his brain anyway, considering where he's going.
 
I'll add this --

It's my understanding, and don't ask me how I know this, but when you open the Emergency Exit of a movie theater, it sets off an alarm in the Managers Office and the Projector Booth.

James Holmes had to prop the back door open, right? Did the theater's security not work, or did Holmes suit up so fast that the ushers couldn't get there in time?

Also, aren't their usually CCTV cams in the theaters and outside?
 
I think it's a justified lawsuit - partially.

The theater IS responsible for security and safety and they explicitly did NOT have an alarm attached to the door which is pure neglect and a measure of stupidity.

It would have prevented the door from being propped open, yes.
It's also used to signify an emergency if evacuation is in progress - to gain attention.

It's just common sense.

Now - the lawsuit RE the producers of the film. . . that's just stupidity. :roll:
 
I'm just guessing here, but it is possible that the propped door may have triggered a silent alarm of sorts, but the theater employees were so busy they either didn't notice it or ignored it. And they may have ignored it because it actually happens quite often, maybe.

If either of these are true, I'm not necessarily saying it would excuse the theater, just saying it may explain how and/or why.
 
hazlnut said:
The Studio?


Seriously.


I feel bad for someone who has lost a friend, but why sue the studio? Oh yeah, lawyers are scumbags and the studio has the deepest pockets.
Click to expand...

The studio's policy of no guns directly lead to damages.
 
TurtleDude said:
well I believe before they sue anyone the organs of the killer should be sold off to hospitals for transplants and use that money for the victims
Click to expand...

Uhh, last time I checked he's still using them.
 
Aberration said:
The studio's policy of no guns directly lead to damages.
Click to expand...
No. A "no guns" policy should absolve them, and lay the blame solely on the shooter... he violated the policy.

I can't decide if I'm being serious or facetious. Maybe a little of both.
 
I think that private businesses should have every right to set rules and policies on their own premises (I.e. No guns) That being said, if it is the businesses wish that their customers be rendered defenseless, it should be the responsibility of the establishment to ensure the safety of their patrons. The exit door is another example of this. Perhaps a few successful suits against Gun Free Zones will leave companies with the impression that it's in their best interests to let people look out for themselves.

I don't see much other liability in this though, outside of the actions of the criminal and the theater management. Doctors can't predict patients behavior and the movie industry is not some sort of mind control device.
 
The suit against the theatre over the alarmed doors is certainly legit enough to warrant pursuit. Obviously, the specific facts of the theatre's layout, the door in question, and other things will make a difference. But the overall question of "does a movie theatre have a duty to keep its patrons safe?" is certainly one worth pursuing. The answer is probably yes. Whether or not the theatre could have taken any actions that would have prevented the shooting is a different story. I won't speculate on the outcome of such a case, but there is certainly grounds to file it and take it to a court.

Even suing the doctor might work, if he did in fact make some kind of mistake in treating the shooter. But the movie producers? No.
 
theangryamerican said:
I think that private businesses should have every right to set rules and policies on their own premises (I.e. No guns) That being said, if it is the businesses wish that their customers be rendered defenseless, it should be the responsibility of the establishment to ensure the safety of their patrons. The exit door is another example of this. Perhaps a few successful suits against Gun Free Zones will leave companies with the impression that it's in their best interests to let people look out for themselves.

I don't see much other liability in this though, outside of the actions of the criminal and the theater management. Doctors can't predict patients behavior and the movie industry is not some sort of mind control device.
Click to expand...


I can't decide, is it worse to be shot in the face by a crazy man or shot in the back by some redneck asshole who brought his gun to the movies?
 
hazlnut said:
I can't decide, is it worse to be shot in the face by a crazy man or shot in the back by some redneck asshole who brought his gun to the movies?
Click to expand...

LOL - same thing.

You're more likely to be killed by your spouse. . . the stats are up.
 
hazlnut said:
I can't decide, is it worse to be shot in the face by a crazy man or shot in the back by some redneck asshole who brought his gun to the movies?
Click to expand...

...because there are plenty of documented cases of latter occurring, right?

*edit* Also the "only rednecks carry guns* stereotype is old, tired and just plain ignorant.
 
Last edited:
It already looks like there are some copy cat people trying to react this tragedy. It's unfortunate but not surprising. It would be good for theaters to change some policies to address and prevent future tragedy. This is very unfortunate, but things like this usually bring changes like safety lids on aspirin bottles, amber alerts, etc.
 
He should sue himself for being negligent in not carrying a concealed firearm.
 
radcen said:
No. A "no guns" policy should absolve them, and lay the blame solely on the shooter... he violated the policy.

I can't decide if I'm being serious or facetious. Maybe a little of both.
Click to expand...

 
theangryamerican said:
...because there are plenty of documented cases of latter occurring, right?

*edit* Also the "only rednecks carry guns* stereotype is old, tired and just plain ignorant.
Click to expand...

The personal attacks, the "cowboy" "stop playing Soldier and grow up" "cowards" and "rednecks" is getting REALLY tiresome, and I tune out such people as they can be rightly ignored as ignorant or hysterical.
 
theangryamerican said:
...because there are plenty of documented cases of latter occurring, right?

*edit* Also the "only rednecks carry guns* stereotype is old, tired and just plain ignorant.
Click to expand...


Sorry... Rednecks, white trash, gun nuts, criminals, and gang-bangers... Did I leave anyone out?

Wanna-be Rambo posers who read Solider of Fortune magazine?

Normal people don't carry guns into movie theaters.
 
hazlnut said:
Sorry... Rednecks, white trash, gun nuts, criminals, and gang-bangers... Did I leave anyone out?

Wanna-be Rambo posers who read Solider of Fortune magazine?

Normal people don't carry guns into movie theaters.
Click to expand...

It's clear that you're only interested in baiting, so this'll likely be my last response in this vein of conversation, but there are countless "normal people" for which putting on a firearm in the morning is part of their daily routine. It's not a conscious decision to carry only to the movie theater, it's a commitment to be prepared and alert no matter where they are.

A firearm does not make a person a wannabe cop or soldier any more than a fire extinguisher makes you a wannabe firefighter or a first aid kit makes you a wannabe doctor.


Here, let's play a game:

Tell me, where is the redneck or the white-trash in these photos
ector-rick-open-carryhoriz-4-18-11.jpg

Opencarry.jpg

...where is the criminal or gang-banger in these pictures?

open_carry_gun_law_01.jpg

open_carry_gun_law_03-300x198.jpg

Despite the attempts of the anti-personal defense crowd to paint everyone with a gun using the same broad brush that you did above, it doesn't change the fact that there are millions of "normal people" who go about their everyday business while at the same time taking responsibility for their own safety..
 
Last edited:
theangryamerican said:
It's clear that you're only interested in baiting, so this'll likely be my last response in this vein of conversation, but there are countless "normal people" for which putting on a firearm in the morning is part of their daily routine.
Click to expand...


I count FIVE pictures with no context. What is their job? Why do they carry a gun?

And I said to a movie theater... so don't change the conversation.

A firearm does not make a person a wannabe cop or soldier any more than a fire extinguisher makes you a wannabe firefighter or a first aid kit makes you a wannabe doctor.
Click to expand...


Here's the point, sport, carrying a firearm in public for no good reason makes you a dangerous asshole. IMO.


Again, photos w/o context are meaningless. Fail on your part.
 
EagleAye said:
I'm trying to imagine how he would pay.

Maybe, instead of spraying perfume into rabbits' eyes to see if it hurts (how mean to the wittle bunny!), we could spray it into his? He could become the primary tester for all perfume manufacturers.
Click to expand...

I said harvest his organs and sell them to transplant needy patients
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom