Author Topic: Is the Movie Theater resposible for the safety of movie goers?? (Read 3406 times)

turk762 · « **on:** July 22, 2012, 04:56:03 AM »

I just heard on the news that the movie theater restricted carrying firearms into the build. With the taking away of the constutional right to self protection, shouldnt the movie theater be responsible for the safety of the movie goers. Do you thing the movie theater should be sued for the restriction of self defense.

I know the talking heads on the news are calling for more restrictions but the restrictions at the movie theater is why the mass shooting was possible.

Laws restricted the shooter from killing and shooting people= this failed
Policy of the movie theater restricted from taking guns into the theater= this also failed

So with this thinking in mind now if we make more laws= Makes us safer???

Laws and police are reactive in this kind of situation, not proactive.

Laws only keep the honest man honest. The crooked and evil people will still be there regardless of the laws. Lets just make it illegal to be crooked or evil.

lakota · « **Reply #1 on:** July 22, 2012, 05:04:04 AM »

I believe I am the one who is ultimatley responsible for my own safety. I will go out of my way to avoid places that think a "no guns" sign will make their establishment a safer place.

Dee · « **Reply #2 on:** July 22, 2012, 05:10:55 AM »

To be redundant on this thread I'll repeat myself from another thread. To me the "no guns sign" at a business says: YOU CAN TRUST "US", BUT WE DON'T TRUST "YOU". I "will not" do business "knowingly" with a "no guns business" unless "forced" to do so, such as a governmental building.
AND! I agree with lakota. Unless unwillingly disarmed, "I feel" responsible for me, and mine as far as personal safety. I trust "no one" with me and mine's life, except me.

DDZ · « **Reply #3 on:** July 22, 2012, 05:12:21 AM »

If the theater didn't allow law abiding citizens to carry a concealed gun into their theater, then yes the lawsuits should fall on them.

The laws that politicians write, they have to know that only law abiding people will follow them, and that laws don't matter to criminals. I don't believe they are that stupid. Its plain common sense, although I do know that many politicians lack in the common sense department. Still it doesn't take much to know that only lawful people will follow laws. There are other agendas involved, especially when it comes to gun laws.

turk762 · « **Reply #4 on:** July 22, 2012, 05:21:55 AM »

I guess my point is that the Movie Theater took away the right to self-defense, there fore the Movie Theater is responsible for the protections of the people. It would be like a Police Department unarming the Police Department because it is safer for the community. They would have there pants sued by the Police Officers.

This should be the ultimate example of why business should not have the right to disarm. The Movie Theater set the stage for this whole mess. No doubt the shooter chose this location for a reason, to shoot ducks in a barrel, so to speak.

Cuts Crooked · « **Reply #5 on:** July 22, 2012, 05:35:21 AM »

A lawsuit will be difficult for any of the victims who survived. They will have to PROVE that they did not carry a firearm specifically because the theater disallowed it. And then they would have to prove that they had no choice but to enter the theater.

Any CCW holder who made the choice to enter a place that does not allow weapons, has just lost their case because THEY MADE THE CHOICE TO ENTER UNARMED. They would also have to prove that the direct causation of their injury was being disarmed by the theater.

Shi++y deal but that's pretty much the way it is.

BTW, my wife and youngest son went to see the new Batman movie yesterday. They were armed. No sign about firearms at the theater, and we don't ask.

Dee · « **Reply #6 on:** July 22, 2012, 06:10:20 AM »

Quote from: turk762 on July 22, 2012, 05:21:55 AM

I guess my point is that the Movie Theater took away the right to self-defense, there fore the Movie Theater is responsible for the protections of the people. It would be like a Police Department unarming the Police Department because it is safer for the community. They would have there pants sued by the Police Officers.

This should be the ultimate example of why business should not have the right to disarm. The Movie Theater set the stage for this whole mess. No doubt the shooter chose this location for a reason, to shoot ducks in a barrel, so to speak.

Like CC said. No one took anything. The folks that CHOSE to go in there unarmed. They GAVE their right to self defense away, when they agreed to go in unarmed.

PowPow · « **Reply #7 on:** July 22, 2012, 06:12:05 AM »

Cuts Crooked nailed it.

turk762 · « **Reply #8 on:** July 22, 2012, 06:25:45 AM »

CC, I agree with what you are saying about making the choice to enter anyway. But by disarming people you are putting the responsibility of protection in the hands of the Movie Theater and they failed, making them responsible.

Law Enforcement takes a individual into custody, LE is responsible for that individual. know matter if they beat their own head in to the cage or try to commit suicide in jail. They chose to commit the crime, they were arrested and they chose to commit suicide, this does not exempt the LE officer or Jail staff from having the Dept. sued. You are responsible because you took their protection into your own hands...

If the theater had protected their patrons it would have been fine...

??

The theater created this target rich environment through their policy. The only thing that should have to be proven is that 1) the Theater took on the protection role for the safety of the patrons 2) They were not kept safe (which is obviously did not happen)

Free choice allows me to go on amusement park rides, but does not negate the responsibiltiy of the amusement company to keep me and my family safe while I am on it. They have responsibilties as well.

Land_Owner · « **Reply #9 on:** July 22, 2012, 06:27:03 AM »

Mass assembly will always be a target. The Theater isn't responsible. The individual is responsible.

Terror is not about winning. It is about Fear. Government is not about help. It is about Control. Liberals are not in their Right Mind. Disarmed Liberals are just plain Stupid.

mcbammer · « **Reply #10 on:** July 22, 2012, 06:35:14 AM »

These bussiness s ussally have somthing in writing like ( enter at your own risk) or ( not responsible for damages or injuries ). These ambulance chasers will probably go after them regardless.

turk762 · « **Reply #11 on:** July 22, 2012, 06:49:07 AM »

If you guys say so, but I have a sneaking suspition that the legality to this is not only on the disarmed persons head. Remember guys coffee is hot, but is is the companies resposibility to inform you that it is hot, or they pay big $$$.

Did the theater inform these people that they will not be protected and could be shot??? Or is it just common sense???
Coffee is hot that is common sense!!!! crappy, but that is the way it is!!!!

jhm · « **Reply #12 on:** July 22, 2012, 07:01:38 AM »

The LIBs will make the movie theatres like the post office, state offices, fed. offices , schools, etc,etc. Jim

kevinsmith5 · « **Reply #13 on:** July 22, 2012, 07:58:42 AM »

I
Suppose a lawyer might run arguing that the "no concealed weapons" rule kept armed citizens who might have stopped it from going to the theater (it would have me) and there fore the movie goers were at risk because armed citizens were assured not robe present. Heck, he could call some of the people commenting here as supporting witnesses to say CCW users avoid places like that, making it a concentrated population of victims. Sort of a "you got rid of the sheepdogs, now you're responsible for what the wolves did" argument. I doubt it will happen, but it seems at least as plausible as "I bought hot coffee from you, put it between my legs, then drive over a speed bump so it's YOUR fault I got burned".

Dee · « **Reply #14 on:** July 22, 2012, 08:02:00 AM »

Quote from: kevinsmith5 on July 22, 2012, 07:58:42 AM

I
Suppose a lawyer might run arguing that the "no concealed weapons" rule kept armed citizens who might have stopped it from going to the theater (it would have me) and there fore the movie goers were at risk because armed citizens were assured not robe present. Heck, he could call some of the people commenting here as supporting witnesses to say CCW users avoid places like that, making it a concentrated population of victims. Sort of a "you got rid of the sheepdogs, now you're responsible for what the wolves did" argument. I doubt it will happen, but it seems at least as plausible as "I bought hot coffee from you, put it between my legs, then drive over a speed bump so it's YOUR fault I got burned".

If this wasn't true it would be funny.

Cuts Crooked · « **Reply #15 on:** July 22, 2012, 08:16:42 AM »

<sigh> While the idea that the theater is responsible because they didn't provide protection sounds good, the reality is that UNLESS THEY SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT THEY PROVIDE PROTECTION their patrons are SOL!

It's like a lot of people think that public schools are responsible if their child gets hurt or killed.......NOT SO! Unless there was reason to believe there was a specific danger to the child the school is cannot be held accountable. Ergo: A shooting at a school by an outsider or even a student, is not the schools fault in the eyes of the law.....Unless there was a credible threat beforehand, that the school was aware of and had time to react too.

The analogy of being in LE custody doesn't hold up because the perp did not CHOOSE to be in custody...he intended to get away but got caught......not his choice to be under arrest....so yes, the arresting authority becomes responsible for his safety and well being...up to a point.

I hope some of our land sharks will jump in here and comment, because while I pretty much know how these things work, I am not lawyer nor do I play one on TV.

BTW, one can "sue" over absolutely anything! But there is a major difference between the sueing and the winning of a suit.

kevinsmith5 · « **Reply #16 on:** July 22, 2012, 09:28:55 AM »

The coffee case was won.
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.

Cuts Crooked · « **Reply #17 on:** July 22, 2012, 09:40:12 AM »

Mmm..I think the coffee case was settled...big difference. Regardless our social morays have changed since then, in some measure because of the McDs case. And law suits have a lot to do with social perceptions.

DickelDawg · « **Reply #18 on:** July 22, 2012, 10:39:30 AM »

WHERE WERE the people with concealed carry permits!!???

Cuts Crooked · « **Reply #19 on:** July 22, 2012, 11:06:23 AM »

Quote from: DickelDawg on July 22, 2012, 10:39:30 AM

WHERE WERE the people with concealed carry permits!!???

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)

m-g Willy · « **Reply #20 on:** July 22, 2012, 11:16:38 AM »

Quote from: Cuts Crooked on July 22, 2012, 11:06:23 AM

Quote from: DickelDawg on July 22, 2012, 10:39:30 AM
WHERE WERE the people with concealed carry permits!!???

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)

No ! They didn't break the theater rules.
They followed the law about not carrying in a posted place.
They thought that the theater would make sure of their safety when they would not allow them the means to defend themself.

Cuts Crooked · « **Reply #21 on:** July 22, 2012, 11:27:12 AM »

Quote from: m-g Willy on July 22, 2012, 11:16:38 AM

No ! They didn't break the theater rules.
They followed the law about not carrying in a posted place.
They thought that the theater would make sure of their safety when they would not allow them the means to defend themself.

You are getting there......they are not responsible. Neither is the theater, the man who did the shooting is responsible. Trying to blame the theater is a liberal thought process all the way around! It is this sort of thinking that lead us to this point in the first place.

BLAME SOMEONE WITH MONEY NO MATTER HOW FAR WE HAVE TO STRETCH REALITY......GET THE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!

mcbammer · « **Reply #22 on:** July 22, 2012, 11:40:29 AM »

Quote from: kevinsmith5 on July 22, 2012, 09:28:55 AM

The coffee case was won.
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.

Coporations often go ahead an settle frivalous lawsuits to keep down bad publicity & cut court cost and lawyer fees.

45-70.gov · « **Reply #23 on:** July 22, 2012, 12:21:38 PM »

years ago Block Buster Video posted signs nation wide...

NO WEAPONS ALLOWED.....or something like that

NRA sent out notice or some one wrote some where to notify BBV

either they intend to not do business over this ...or

they intend to hold BBV liable for thier security in the store and parking lot

ONCE PUT ON NOTICE THEY NEW IT WAS A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE THEY GOT SUED

by one of those that had put them on notice

with in one month the signs came down if i remember correct

i suggest we see a sign telling us to leave our gun behind....
we spend the money on certified mail and put people on notice
we might even post a letter to the editor in a local news paper
that said busines is being puplicly put on notice

RaySendero · « **Reply #24 on:** July 22, 2012, 12:24:18 PM »

Quote from: m-g Willy on July 22, 2012, 11:16:38 AM

No ! They didn't break the theater rules.
They followed the law about not carrying in a posted place.
They thought that the theater would make sure of their safety when they would not allow them the means to defend themself.

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!

Cuts Crooked · « **Reply #25 on:** July 22, 2012, 01:02:59 PM »

Quote from: RaySendero on July 22, 2012, 12:24:18 PM

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.........

powderman · « **Reply #26 on:** July 22, 2012, 02:44:50 PM »

Lots of good points brought up here but I believe the theatre should share in the responsibility for folks safety. The guy went out then back in the emergency exit with no alarm or anybody questioning him for one thing. I am responsible for my own safety and going into a stupid zone is not always possible to avoid. When I go to ILL to visit family the whole darn state is basicly a gun free zone. I disarm myself as soon as I cross the state line. I too avoid any business that denies my right to protect myself. It might have been possible that a ccw had been sitting just a few ft away from this punk, thanks to their rules we'll never know. How many ccw holders were there that disarmed themselves to please the movie house?? We'll never know that either but I bet there were several. POWDERMAN.

kevinsmith5 · « **Reply #27 on:** July 22, 2012, 04:25:48 PM »

Quote from: mcbammer on July 22, 2012, 11:40:29 AM

Quote from: kevinsmith5 on July 22, 2012, 09:28:55 AM
The coffee case was won.
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.
Coporations often go ahead an settle frivalous lawsuits to keep down bad publicity & cut court cost and lawyer fees.

That case was NOT settled. McDonald's lost in court. You gotta figure that makes it pretty easy to blame corporations (I think it was wrong as all get out).

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Victor3 · « **Reply #28 on:** July 22, 2012, 09:14:24 PM »

It probably wouldn't have changed things much if a few average (minimally trained/practiced) armed men were in the theater. It was dark, they would have been taken by surprise, most likely carrying handguns/ammo that couldn't defeat full body armor (anyone remember the North Hollywood shootout?). Their muzzle flash would have made them instant targets, and against someone using an AR with a hi-cap mag.

Jeff Cooper or Massad Ayoob might have been handy to have around that day, but the average CCW holder just wouldn't have had much of a chance unless he was carrying an FN Five-Seven with a laser.

Maybe the theater should have had a sign stating "No body armor, smoke grenades or rifles permitted."

DDZ · « **Reply #29 on:** July 22, 2012, 10:39:24 PM »

After thinking about this more, I agree the theater is not at fault, the shooter is. As others have said we are each responsible for our own safety. Its not the governments responsibility, nor is it any establishments, or businesses responsibility. When we want the government or anyone else to provide for our safety there is always a trade off for freedom. The theater could make it safer for its customers if they installed metal detectors, searched people going in and put a guard at every door, and charge people a much higher price for their ticket. I figure then the theater wouldn't do much of a business.