Is the Movie Theater resposible for the safety of movie goers??

[Land_Owner]

And I think the argument would be "if you kept armed citizens capable of protecting those around them out, you should have protected us". While I still DOUBT the argument will be made, it would be interesting seeing CCW users portrayed in court as necessary parts of a safe society.

Which brings up another train of thought: If the people with CCWs had ignored the rules concerning carrying weapons in the theater...perhaps they could have prevented much death and injury.
 
Sooooo.........are they responsible and therefor suject to lawsuits for their negligence?
 
(see where I'm going with this? Holding the theater responsible is on the same level)

Emphasis added is mine. 

Putting these thoughts together, do we envision a Society that makes CCW license holders responsible for the safety of those that refuse to arm themselves?  How subserviant a twist would that be?  Not even LE has that responsibility.

[Dixie Dude]

I do think the theater is somewhat responsible.  For instance, ushers should be placed at the exits so noone can enter through them, exit only unless there is a fire.  Simple solution, but it would cost the theater owners to keep a couple of guys there by the door during the movies.  Any cell phone calls or other needs to leave should do so through the lobby.  Can't stop everyone or everything.  A guy with a coat could be carrying a bomb or bombs, leave them under a seat, leave the building through the lobby and set them off. 

[Needles]

I think that their signs are what the business rules are, but the sign is not the law. There will eventually be a lot of court cases over this, I'm sure. I look at it like those signs on the back of trucks that claim they are not responsible for broken windshields--- the heck they ain't! The LAW says a commercial vehicle IS responsible for securing the load, and if a rock from a dump truck breaks your windshield, then they pay for your windshield, as well as court costs if that's what it takes to make them pay, regardless of whether there is a sign. A business can also put up a sign that says "No Dogs" and all they have to do is claim it's an assistive animal, because the laws in most places say you can't restrict access for people who have assistive animals. The law overrides the business' policies.

[kevinsmith5]

Now did y'all also catch that the shooter exited and then re-entered an emergency exit to get his guns and equipment?
 
AND that there was no alarm when the exit door was opened?
 
Seems to me to theater was lax in securing their gun free zone!

Yep! Same with every single school shooting we've seen. Every shooter walked right in. You hear about anyone winning a huge lawsuit against the schools?

Bottom line, there will be no lawsuit brought against the theater. And if by some freak chance there is, it will be dismissed so fast it will make your head spin. That is just reality, y'all can dream of a world where you can get money from someone for anothers actions, but until the liberals have complete control, it ain't gonna happen.

All of this reminds of those attempts to sue the gun manufactures for making guns....that are used to commit crimes! Same kind of thinking here.........

The school system in Littleton (Columbine) lost $22 million, does that count?

[kevinsmith5]

And I think the argument would be "if you kept armed citizens capable of protecting those around them out, you should have protected us". While I still DOUBT the argument will be made, it would be interesting seeing CCW users portrayed in court as necessary parts of a safe society.

Which brings up another train of thought: If the people with CCWs had ignored the rules concerning carrying weapons in the theater...perhaps they could have prevented much death and injury.
 
Sooooo.........are they responsible and therefor suject to lawsuits for their negligence?
 
(see where I'm going with this? Holding the theater responsible is on the same level)

Emphasis added is mine. 

Putting these thoughts together, do we envision a Society that makes CCW license holders responsible for the safety of those that refuse to arm themselves?  How subserviant a twist would that be?  Not even LE has that responsibility.

Wow, you sure twisted that hard. How did you get to that from where the conversation started?

[turk762]

CC, I am not a Liberal, Money grabber or Sue happy and I resent that you seem to be saying that I am.
 
My point of the whole conversation was, I am discussing that a company can disarm someone and not take action to protect them. I was hoping this incident would cause some suits being filed and deter other companies from taking the right to self defense away from us. The only thing that hurts or scares companies is lawsuits and loss of $.
 
Just grasping at straws for me and other gun carrying bros. to prevent us from being disarmed. It just doesnt seem right.

[Cuts Crooked]

Putting these thoughts together, do we envision a Society that makes CCW license holders responsible for the safety of those that refuse to arm themselves?  How subserviant a twist would that be?  Not even LE has that responsibility.

You are doing the same thing a lot here are doing, trying to hold one party responsible while not holding another to the same standard.

Let me rephrase your question: "Putting these thoughts together, do we envision a society that makes property owners responsible for the safety of those who voluntarily choose to go into a property that does not permit concealed carry?"

Get it? If someone comes into your grandmothers home and she doesn't want them to bring a gun, does she become responsible for them if a criminal enters and starts shooting?........same thing, property owners have the right to decide what is, or is not acceptable on/in their property. YOU have the right to decide if you accept those restrictions, you are not being forced to go there.....YOU made that choice.

NO ONE WAS FORCED TO GO INTO THAT THEATER WITHOUT A GUN, THEY COULD HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO GO THERE!

I'm not a betting man, but I'm willing on this one.

Where are our resident land sharks? I would welcome their thoughts.

[turk762]

I think that their signs are what the business rules are, but the sign is not the law. There will eventually be a lot of court cases over this, I'm sure. I look at it like those signs on the back of trucks that claim they are not responsible for broken windshields--- the heck they ain't! The LAW says a commercial vehicle IS responsible for securing the load, and if a rock from a dump truck breaks your windshield, then they pay for your windshield, as well as court costs if that's what it takes to make them pay, regardless of whether there is a sign. A business can also put up a sign that says "No Dogs" and all they have to do is claim it's an assistive animal, because the laws in most places say you can't restrict access for people who have assistive animals. The law overrides the business' policies.

Yea, Needles, it is a rule or a policy, but if you dont follow it you are no longer a wecome guest and could be cited for tresspassing.

[Cuts Crooked]

CC, I am not a Liberal, Money grabber or Sue happy and I resent that you seem to be saying that I am.
 
My point of the whole conversation was, I am discussing that a company can disarm someone and not take action to protect them. I was hoping this incident would cause some suits being filed and deter other companies from taking the right to self defense away from us. The only thing that hurts or scares companies is lawsuits and loss of $.
 
Just grasping at straws for me and other gun carrying bros. to prevent us from being disarmed. It just doesnt seem right.

The problem with your argument is that the company DID NOT disarm anyone, they made a voluntary choice to either disarm and enter the property or not to go there.........NO ONE FORCED THEM TO DO ANYTHING! And THAT claim is liberal style thinking in my book.

Look, I know that we here on GBO (well most of us anyway) would all like to be able to carry anywhere we damned well please, but do we really want to force everyone to carry? That's seems to be where this will end up.

[Cuts Crooked]

The school system in Littleton (Columbine) lost $22 million, does that count?

Can you give me link to that judgement? One that includes the reason for the judgement?

[tobster]

As someone else mentioned, aren't most emergency exit doors wired with an alarm that goes off when the door is open. At least a lot of them have signs indicating such. It seems to me a theater would have that to keep people from opening the back door and allowing others to enter without paying.

[Cuts Crooked]

As someone else mentioned, aren't most emergency exit doors wired with an alarm that goes off when the door is open. At least a lot of them have signs indicating such. It seems to me a theater would have that to keep people from opening the back door and allowing others to enter without paying.

Yep! and I now how to override those alarms.....I'd guess a surprizing number of people do.

[charles p]

I think that emergency exits should turn on interior lights and notify management whenever used or left open.  This is a safety concern that was violated.  If no firearms are allowed inside, then a metal detector should be used to keep everyone on an even playing field.  My wife and I both have a concealed carry permit, but we would not be confortable inside a dark crowded theater pacted with armed youth in their tenns and twenties.

[Cuts Crooked]

The other question is if you're a CCW guy and try to stop a situation, but innocent victims are injured or worst by your weapon in the mayhem....what happens??
.
.
..TM7

That thought has gone through my head too, but that's a whole 'nuther ball of wax and I'm not sure I'm willing to tackle it jist yet. Remember the thread about Homeland Security and the purchase of hollow point ammo? That becomes just ONE of the issues.............

Leading me to wonder how many CCW holders WERE in the crowd, against the theaters rules, and decided not to "go into action"?

[Cuts Crooked]

I think that emergency exits should turn on interior lights and notify management whenever used or left open.  This is a safety concern that was violated.  If no firearms are allowed inside, then a metal detector should be used to keep everyone on an even playing field.  My wife and I both have a concealed carry permit, but we would not be confortable inside a dark crowded theater pacted with armed youth in their tenns and twenties.

Already covered that....they are easy to overide with a modicum of electrical knowledge. However your comment may be the only point of weakness in defending against a lawsuit, and it would a minor point at that.

Now...hold the theater chain liable for the safety of patrons against terrorist acts......how long until theaters cease to exist? Armed guards, metal detectors, body scanners, explosive sniffers, pat down before entrance, strip searches......starting to sound like TSA

[turk762]

I agree that patrons made a CHOICE to enter the theater unarmed.
 
But the theater made a CHOICE to ask the patrons to disarm.
 
I believe a true CONSERVATIVE wants people and business to be responsible for their own actions. The way I see it their was 2 CHOICES made here, 1) the theater asked patrons to disarm. 2) the patrons disarmed, at the request of the theater. At minimum that makes the theater 50% at fault.
 
In your mindset the theater is not responsible for any of this, it is only the fault of the patron??? You sir, are not a CONSERVATIVE if you do not believe the theater should be responsible for the CHOICES they made, or are they exempt from responsibility? If you want to say I have Liberal mindset so be it, but I believe it is conservative thinking to make everyone responsible for their own CHOICES and that is what I beleive should be done here.
 
I know you have pointed out that you have worn a badge for 20 or 30 yrs, if you work in LE you should know the court system can be very unpredictable, and extremly unpredictable when emotions are involved. 
 
 

[kevinsmith5]

My arguement would be the theater KEPT CCW users away. That made the population at greater risk to something like this. Even if it got thrown out, it would be nice to see a lawsuit filed to publicize that aspect of the debate.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

[Cuts Crooked]

But the theater made a CHOICE to ask the patrons to disarm.
 

Unfortunately for your argument, they have the RIGHT to make that choice.....a basic premis of what this country was founded upon.

Again...the theater DID NOT FORCE THEM TO DISARM......what part of that is so hard to understand? A lot of you seem to have a real difficult time with that simple fact.
 It was their choice to enter and it was their choice not to also........The theater did not go out on the streets and force anyone to go inside, they simply said, "this is our policy" if you don't like it don't go in!...a choice. Their choice to state, "no firearms" is their right.....just like it's grannies right to say "no firearms at the dinner table".
You would take choices away from everyone......very liberal mindset.

[turk762]

But the theater made a CHOICE to ask the patrons to disarm.
 

Unfortunately for your argument, they have the RIGHT to make that choice.....a basic premis of what this country was founded upon.

Again...the theater DID NOT FORCE THEM TO DISARM......what part of that is so hard to understand? A lot of you seem to have a real difficult time with that simple fact.
 It was their choice to enter and it was their choice not to also........The theater did not go out on the streets and force anyone to go inside, they simply said, "this is our policy" if you don't like it don't go in!...a choice. Their choice to state, "no firearms" is their right.....just like it's grannies right to say "no firearms at the dinner table".
You would take choices away from everyone......very liberal mindset.

When the theater asked them to disarm they took over the role as protector. I am not saying that they theater should be forced into allowing it, just that they are responsible if something sould happen. I dont want to take choices away from anyone, but I do want them to be responsible for the choices they do make. Obviously you dont agree. You sound like a liberal enabler to me.
 
Granny's house has totally diffrent rules then businesses open to the public. SO the Granny example does not apply.

[Cuts Crooked]

The school system in Littleton (Columbine) lost $22 million, does that count?

Uh...Kevin........they lost how much?  http://edition.cnn.com/2001/LAW/11/27/columbine.lawsuit/index.html
http://trenchreynolds.me/2004/07/22/columbine-lawsuit-appeal/

Kinda what I thought.

[turk762]

The school system in Littleton (Columbine) lost $22 million, does that count?

Uh...Kevin........they lost how much?  http://edition.cnn.com/2001/LAW/11/27/columbine.lawsuit/index.html

Kinda what I thought.

Sounds like it was dismissed under the Colorado Government Immunity Act.
 
Was the theater Government Owned. Are they into theaters now?? Businesses are diffrent then Gov. agencies.

[powderman]

CUTS. I  don't feel that I should be made to give up my right to defend myself to see a movie because some pantywetter liberal outfit owns it. I shouldn't be forced to disarm myself to vist family in ILL either, but I am. I either don't do business with companies like that or just ignore them and carry anyway, thats why it's called concealed, but not in ILL. If I am ever attacked in ILL and live I'll do my best to find an atty that will sue the state for denying me my right to protect myself. POWDERMAN. 

[Cuts Crooked]

 
Sounds like it was dismissed under the Colorado Government Immunity Act.
 
Was the theater Government Owned. Are they into theaters now?? Businesses are diffrent then Gov. agencies.

Nope, it was privately owned......and owners of private property SHOULD have more protection than governmental agencies....All of us better hope so anyway!

Interesting that the "act" did not apply to another governmental agency though...the sheriffs department. They were found to be negligent in their actions.....the school was not........interesting! But then the sheriffs department is charged with protecting, the school is not.

Irrespective, your claim was that Columbine Schools lost 22 million.....they didn't.

 So......let's stick to the facts. FACT: Persons and businesses have a right to control what they allow on their property. FACT people have the right to not enter places that do not allow them to be armed. FACT if you choose to do so, it's not the person or businesses fault if a terrorist disregards the rules/laws.

Question: A week ago would the general population reasonably expect to be attacked by a terrorist in a theater? (no hindsight permitted....gotta go with the way things were before this happened) This question will be an issue in any lawsuit.

[Cuts Crooked]

CUTS. I  don't feel that I should be made to give up my right to defend myself to see a movie because some pantywetter liberal outfit owns it. I shouldn't be forced to disarm myself to vist family in ILL either, but I am. I either don't do business with companies like that or just ignore them and carry anyway, thats why it's called concealed, but not in ILL. If I am ever attacked in ILL and live I'll do my best to find an atty that will sue the state for denying me my right to protect myself. POWDERMAN. 

VERY GOOD PM! You just made my point very concisely! Thank You!!!!!!!!!

[turk762]

 
Sounds like it was dismissed under the Colorado Government Immunity Act.
 
Was the theater Government Owned. Are they into theaters now?? Businesses are diffrent then Gov. agencies.

Nope, it was privately owned......and owners of private property SHOULD have more protection than governmental agencies....All of us better hope so anyway!

Interesting that the "act" did not apply to another governmental agency though...the sheriffs department. They were found to be negligent in their actions.....the school was not........interesting! But then the sheriffs department is charged with protecting, the school is not.

Irrespective, your claim was that Columbine Schools lost 22 million.....they didn't.

 So......let's stick to the facts. FACT: Persons and businesses have a right to control what they allow on their property. FACT people have the right to not enter places that do not allow them to be armed. FACT if you choose to do so, it's not the person or businesses fault if a terrorist disregards the rules/laws.

Question: A week ago would the general population reasonably expect to be attacked by a terrorist in a theater? (no hindsight permitted....gotta go with the way things were before this happened) This question will be an issue in any lawsuit.

CC, The way I understand it, the Sheriff Dept. got sued for the delay of the Medical treatment to one of the teachers. Or did I read that wrong?

[Needles]

I think that their signs are what the business rules are, but the sign is not the law. There will eventually be a lot of court cases over this, I'm sure. I look at it like those signs on the back of trucks that claim they are not responsible for broken windshields--- the heck they ain't! The LAW says a commercial vehicle IS responsible for securing the load, and if a rock from a dump truck breaks your windshield, then they pay for your windshield, as well as court costs if that's what it takes to make them pay, regardless of whether there is a sign. A business can also put up a sign that says "No Dogs" and all they have to do is claim it's an assistive animal, because the laws in most places say you can't restrict access for people who have assistive animals. The law overrides the business' policies.

Yea, Needles, it is a rule or a policy, but if you dont follow it you are no longer a wecome guest and could be cited for tresspassing.

Then they are free to refund my admission money and I would leave. BUT, in the case of concealed carry, they would not be aware that I was breaking their rules unless something else happened--- and I still say that being armed in that theater would probably have just gotten you shot. His body armor would likely stop a handgun slug, and the muzzle flash would have given him his next target. He had  PLANNED to get shot.


Anyway, where are all the "free market" capitalists? They should be defending the theater owners! It's their theater; they can make any rules they want. They sold the theater goers a movie, which was their only capitalistic obligation. A "free market" regulates itself--- the consumers can now feel free to boycott the theater. That'll show 'em!

[Dixie Dude]

I've already mentioned what the owner should have done.  It was a sell out so there were lots of people.  He had cops in front for crowd control.  So, he should have put ushers by the exit doors to make sure no one snuck in without paying.  If someone left, they couldn't reenter.  They should have been directed to leave through the lobby or entrance for phone calls, etc.  I know at SEC football games, they check you for guns and alcohol before you can get in the gate, pockets and purses.  Once you leave, you can't get back in.  Of course it is 80-100,000 people and they have security at the gates big time.  Any place with lots of people should have security. 
 
Now, even if the guy had body armor on, a 357 round would probably have knocked him down, at least knocked the breath out of him so he could be taken down. 
 
I've heard the shotgun had the most kills, not the AR-15.  Lots of buckshot flying. 

[briarpatch]

If anyone tries to use logic or common sense in trying to decide what todays courts will do sleeps in the deep deep woods, lost.
When this is all said and done most will scratch their heads but it want be for the good of man.

[DDZ]

So what if the theater did not have a no gun policy, and there was no one in the theater that night that was carrying. Do some of you still think the theater is at fault for not protecting you?  We can not expect someone else to provide for our safety. You and you alone are responsible for your own personal safety. Society now wants everything to be someone else's fault. Its all part of getting rid of personal responsibility in this country. No wonder property owners, and business owners have to pay so much liability insurance. Its always their fault. How many of you would complain of high prices if businesses that served the public had to hire armed guards for every door, metal detectors, people to do body searches, etc... so some idiot couldn't come busting in and shoot you. What about your local grocery store or Walmart, is it their duty to protect you?       

As far as an usher at the exit doors. The shooter didn't have a problem with gunning down people sitting in their seats, I don't think he would have had a problem taking out a usher.

Geezz needles, are you saying if you were in that position with a firearm, you would not have used it because of the fear of the muzzle flash drawing attention to yourself? How would you have known he had body armor on?   For your information he had no body armor on. Need to stop listening to news sources like the New York Times.
 A CEO from TacticalGear.com said the vest he was wearing came from their mail order company. The vest is made from heavy nylon with no kevlar, or other bullet resistant material. It just looks like it could be body armor. The whole body armor thing is the liberal media pushing their agenda.   

[Dixie Dude]

Building owners are responsible for fire safety.  Therefore they have fire exists and fire extinguishers handy.  Having doors that lock outside but not from inside is and should be a must, or have an usher stationed by the door to make sure it is closed so noone can enter though an exit door.  Making a wouldbe terroist go through the front by the ticket booth, and by ushers checking tickets, and by the concessions should trigger a call to the police before the guy can do much carnage.  Having a button that a ticket booth person can push to lock all doors from outside entry when/if someone trys to do something stupid could also be installed.  Yes these things would cost money, but not as much as possible lawsuits, and it is a one time installation.  Something as simple as having a buzzer or light signal someone that a door is or has been opened going out when there is no alarm would allow for someone to investigate and report back or simply go close the door.