Oh please, before this the only reason a movie theater would have guarded a back door would be to keep teenagers from sneaking in to see a free movie, something we used to do all the time back in the day. The movie theater was thought to be a safe place. Just like before 9-11 no one had to go through body scanners and take their shoes off before getting on a plane and before the anthrax thing people didn't freak out if a bottle of baby powder leaked out of a grocery bag. Hind sight is 20/20. Today they'll sue the theater. In 6 months we'll have to allow our bags to be searched and walk through a metal detector before going to see a movie. Pray that these people don't win or we'll all be paying the price every time we want to go out for date night. Bottom line, the fault only lies with one person, and he's in custody standing trial. If you want to sue, sue his family, they created him.

Are you kidding me? This is ridiculous. Even if concealed guns had been permitted I have to wonder how many actually HAD concealed weapons permits?

Alarms should have been put on the doors. I do agree with that. Anyone attempting to enter from the outside should trigger said alarm. However suing the theater just reeks of 'me me me everybody owes me now' sort of mentality that I think is far too ridiculous now days. They should be focusing on recovering and on the upcoming trial. Not seeing how much money they can squeeze out of a company because of something that was out of the companies hands. This is like the idiots suing the film makers for this fiasco.

Lunky - I lived in Denver for years. If you have a ccp you can bring it just about anywhere. My roomates brother often had it on him.

Hindsight is the best sight.. Coulda shoulda woulda..... You went out to see a movie, you didn't expect to get shot up any more than cinemark expected a gunman to show up.. Get over it and be thankful your still alive.

I feel for the victims, but.... this is ridiculous. Just looking to make a quick buck at someone else's expense.

fritter, no offense, but have you ever been shot with body armor on? Just an insight, it's like getting hit by a truck.

As for the blood bath, you imagining that this individual would have not been stopped, just by the "warning shot". Given the fact he surrendered to police without incident, also cements the fact.

The fact that he undoubtly knew that patrons would be unarmed had to go into account, when planning.

Just rough check, how many civilian killings of this type has been in a place where you would expect to find armed people? Answer, none... unarmed individuals are much easier to pick off than the potential one that can shoot back.

I feel so horribly for the victims that died, all those injured and those emotionally traumatized by this shooting. THey should have and support with their medical bills, loss of wages etc.. Unfortunately, the ONE person responsibe for the nightmare that they have been thru is a crazy monster that has NOTHING for anybody to take from him but his life. THe theater is NOT responsible for this psycopath's actions and had NO way to foretell that this would happen. I think the theater owners would take independent action to contribute to the victims but should NOT be sued. I think the public could be counted on to contriute to the expenses if called on to do so. I have no doubt that public venues will be doing every thing in their power to mke their premises as secure as possible but we just can't stop every maniac out there that wants to terrorize people and we can't hold the owners of places that these things occurr at liable for all the expenses in the aftermath. Shouldn't be held liable beyond what insurance coverages they may have.

"I nor will my family be made a victim of anyone"

Wait, what? I'm kinda confused.

Lunky - that was a stupid statment. No one should be sued. Bad things happen to good people. It is unfortunate, but it's life. We shouldn't sue anyone but the person who did it, and good luck collecting anything from him (and no his family in not at fault either).

But Fritter you are also wrong. Body armour or not he likely could have been stopped without a "bloodbath" had somebody had a gun and knew how to use it. Keep in mind I am somone who doesn't own a gun, but I would in a heartbeat if I felt I needed it to defend myself or my family. If you need an example of how there could be no bloodbath look up the Dollar Store that was being robbed and the 57 year old guy who was legally carrying stopped the robbery and killed one of the two robbers (the other one fled). No bloodbath...just one bad guy going to meet his maker and everyone else safe.

I completely understand that people want to keep these events from happening, but preventing people from carrying and thus defending themselves, their families and those around them is not the way unless you think the bad guys and crazies will graciously comply with such a law. The right to defend ones self is fundamental to being an American. Take away that right and we have real problems. And keep in mind....I don't own a gun!

they are seeking easy money. If they get rob and beat up at home, are they going to sue the federal government and the state police for not doing enough to protect them while they are at home. Crimes can happen anywhere. Have some common sense. Americans, always blame the others for thier own problem.

What a bunch of selfish **shole*! It's not the Theaters fault, it's one **shole who's runing things for all of america. Now that these victims of a senseless crime are suing the theater...we'll all have to walk through metal detectors for the every movie we see...because of one allusional but t f uk. Sorry...just angers me..

This country is crazy for law suits. Ambulance chasers and the ACLU are a drain on society.

I no longer have a lick of sympathy for these three "victims." They're trying to get rich off of their fifteen minutes of fame. They should be ashamed of themselves, denigrating the real victims of the tragedy. I hope they lose and have to pay all the legal expenses.

Lets see. We have to much security at the airports but not enough in the movies. WHY?, most lawyers are democrats suing republican businesses.Fire exits are not supposed to be locked. When they are and there's a fire that also is a law suit.Hindsight is a wonderful thing for lawyers and the media.The shooter is insane the lawyer says,so he goes free, the movie and workers are put out of business,the lawyers get 33% and didn't get shot.I wonder why the shooter doesn't get sued???

Sueing the movie theater? Somebody take all the personal injury lawyers out and hang them.

I want no part of a society where every time I go to sears or the local cumby's, I have to wait in line to get in. I want no part of going through a metal detector and then get wanded when it beeps and have to take my hat,belt and shoes off and send them through an x-ray machine (like in a court house)just so I can go shopping or get gas.

As for putting an alarm on the door? Yeah MAYBE but that only does any good if there is a security officer right there in the room with a gun. A high powered gun at that (he had body armor on). There really isn't anything you could reasonably expect the theatre to do other than lock it on the outside as it is a fire hazard and illegal to lock it from the inside.

Movies already cost way too much to go to. Can you imagine how much they would cost if the theatres had to pay an armed gaurd $35/hr to stand at every exit/entrance ?

I really feel sorry for the victims of this shooting and it sickens me that this yahoo might get away with a sentence in a mental hospital. If he was truly unaware of the consiquences of his actions he would not have rigged his apartment.

I do have a question that I cant seem to find the answer to though. It says in the article there is a $5 milion victims fund being controlled by the same man who conrolled the 9/11 fund. Where did this $$ come from and why isnt it enough? Did the company provide it? Are the lawyers mad that they arent getting their cut?

Like I said, I feel sorry for the victims but I hope they lose the case and it doesnt get settled out of court.

Let's see. A dark theater, someone opens fire indicriminately, one armed citizen decides to stop the shooter by shooting at the muzzle flash, a second armed citizen sees #1's muzzle flash and fires at it, a third AC sees #2's MF and fires at it, ad nausuem.

The end result is that you now have as many victims, just a bunch more killers.

Yeah lunky, your idea makes perfect sense.

NOT.

To "Why" (Post 2.12)

I think you're a little "off" - well, maybe MOR-ON than off.

Where does partisanship come into this anyway ?

Wouldnt you rather blame Bush ? Or Israel ?

"Suing" is not the same as "winning".

We, in the legal field define a "plaintiff" as "An idiot, with a pen, and a filing fee".

The cause of action would be "Negligence", i.e., the failure to act reasonably under the circumstances, so as to avoid foreseeable type of injury to a foreseeable person.

Negligence has 4 elements:

1. DID the theater have a duty to protect THESE moviegoers from that specific type of harm ?

This is where "duty" comes in; WAS the incident foreseeable ? (probably not - even though something like this hasnt happened before, THAT is not dispositive on the issue - the question is, was there something that put the theater on notice that something like this could happen ? IF the theter was called before hand with a warning, there might be liability; however that doesnt seem to be the case.

Another way to prove "duty" is "industry standard" DOES the industry, as a matter of course and conduct, take actions to prevent this ? (probably not)

2. Did they breach that duty ?

First, it is axiomatic that, if there was no duty, then no duty could be breached.

The argument made by these plaintiffs, is that the back door was easily opened, thus allowing the gunman in - that doesnt fly. Back doors are usually closed from the outside to prevent ppl from coming in without paying - NOT to keep gunmen out.

3. Were the moviegoers injured ? (obviously yes)

4. Was their injury caused by the theater's breach of duty ? Again, if no duty, then no "causation".

The argument will be made that, HAD the back door been properly secured, the gunman would HAVE to have entered through the FRONT and thus maximizing the chances that someone would have seen him carrying weapons which possibly could have avoided the incident.

This is NOT a bad argument; however, it FAILS because, once again, there would have to be a reasonable basis for the theater to believe that a "like" incident was likely ("likely", not mere "possibility".

Sure. The plaintiffs WILL find a lawyer who will take the case. The plaintiffs will either settle, or they will lose, and will owe the theater a lot of money in court costs (not attorney fees, because, if the plaintiffs WON, they would not be awarded attorney fees - THAT is the "American" rule, as opposed to the British rule).

What they are looking for, of course, is a settlement, based on the theater not wanting to spend a lot of money on defense. What they fail to realize, is that, if the theater DOES settle, they would be opening the flood gates to more suits and would have to spend MILLIONS on additional security.

What will probably happen, is that the case will be dismissed via "Summary Judgment Motion". i.e., that, with proper expert testimony, the court will rule that, "as a matter of law", there is no triable issue of fact and that the theater is entitled to Judgment without a trial.

But..hey, that's just the humble opinion of this REPUBLICAN lawyer.

@Jeff

If he was entering the front of the movie theater he would of killed more people, so the argument of he would of killed less is thrown out the window entirely. He would of probably not hurt the people suing but he would instead of have a lot more victims because people are entering, waiting on line, getting food and leaving from almost always one entrance, the entrance he would of used.

Also my personal opinion is, they have no right to sue them for lack of security, no other movie theater in the country has security, maybe cameras and alarms but no guards or people watching for this sort of thing. So you can't sue someone because random happen, for all we know he could of attacked a Grocer and killed just as many. So now a Grocer needs more security, not those guys in black with a flashlight either.

Eventually at this rate everyone is going to be so scared of people we will begin to isolate ourselves, have armed security all over the country and be very paranoid.

Hey, this is the US, everyone is sue happy. If you can think of a reason, chances are you'll sue! If you blow your nose in a tissue and pop your eardrum,,, sue! Of course they're going to sue, and the way lawsuites are handeled, they get millions, just wait and see!

The theatre has no obligation to defend you against a statistically VERY low threat (in terms of probability) like a mass shooting (or any violence). They do need to have fire exist though. They also need to allow concealed or open carry by permit holders (at least). The lawsuit is for the wrong reason...the real reason is their banning of firearms that led to a nut picking the place as such as easy target. There is a reason mass shootings happen in no-gun zones andn ot shooting ranges (usually anyways...).There is a reason why gun murder and crime runs rampant in no-gun towns like Chicago (lived there, BTW). Guns are a deterent factor for sociopaths. They lack empathy, not the ability to do simple probability and risk vs reward equations on a subconscious level (usually...).

fire exits*

Suing won't do no good, and why have a gun anyway?

Unless this cinema failed to follow safety and security laws established by the Federal and State goverments, then these law suits have no merit.

With that said, they can sue the Federal and State governments for not having stricter laws imposed. But I think instead of money, the penalty should be to create more stringent laws - like maybe making emergency doors with alarms and which can only be opened from the inside.

This is completely absurd. There is no way that the theater owner ca be held responsible for this. The reason there was no alarm on the door is that it was a regular exit that movie goers can use to exit the theater directly into the parking lot following a movie instead of having to go back through the theater lobby. Many theaters have exits like this. All this is about is some ambulance chasing lawyers and their greedy @!$%# clients looking for someone with deep pockets to sue so they can get rich off this tragedy. I guess they decided they were not getting enough of the money from the charitable contributions and victim's compensation fund that was set up. They were probably not injured badly so they were not getting a big chunk of money and wanted more. I hope the cinema owner counter-sues for legal fees and wins. This suit is completely baseless. I for one do not want to live in a police state where I need to go through airport style security just to go to a movie and pay $30 or more for a movie ticket to cover all the costs of that security. The lawyers involved in filing these suits should be disbarred for abuse of process for even filing this absurd lawsuit.

Yeah Lunky, that's a great idea. Everybody in the theater should have been armed to the teeth, just on the off chance a mentally unstable person opened fire on the crowd. And speaking of the hero fantasy playing on the small screen in your head, just how many bad guys have ever been stopped by citizens with concealed weapons? The comments about him being stopped even though he was wearing body armor ring a little hollow as well. I seem to remember several years back, a couple of bank robbers in Hollywood held off a platoon of police for more than an hour with their body armor. It wasn't until a careful shot from a sniper took one out and the other one offed himself.

I understand that these people went through something horrible, but there was no reason for the theater to expect something like this would occur. It wasn't as though they had received any threats of violence. If they had been shot in the street would they sue the city?

@Crankenstein it wasn't a sniper, it was a couple SWAT guys wounding him in the legs with AR-15s.

Thing is people with CCW may have helped the situation. Or they may have made it worse. There's no way of really knowing either way, and really it's a pointless argument to have from either side.

Cracks me up when little kids trip security doors - man, do their moms get mad.

Murphy's Law; tell a child not to do something and they will do it all the time.

Movie theaters are no place for old men like me - I'd be shooting half the people in the place.

If the theater loses, the new cost of a ticket will be $30.

Cinemark deliberately and knowingly created a mass of people in a closed space and, without exercising any due diligece, made them susceptible to this kind of murderous attack by guaranteeing that no one would be able to defend themselves and that sufficient security did not exist. In all cases where an armed attacker has been subdued by those who are the intended victims, the ones subduing the attacker don't shoot and kill each other. You watch too much Hollywood crap. It is not like a TV barroom brawl with everyone shooting everyone else. CCW holders are not some panic stricken mob who shoot at everything that moves, they are well disciplined individuals who are keenly aware of the consequences of discharging a firearm and the responsibility that goes with it. The police shoot and wound or kill far more innocent bystanders in panic than CCW holders. The latest shooting in New York City by a group of panic stricken police is the latest example.

Great point!! I agree totally. I, too, am a CCW permit holder in Two states (Utah and Virginia) and have been for many years. I own many guns of all varieties. I am Not some "gun nut" (as those uninformed like to say) and I am WELL aware of what they can do. We are responsible, intelligent, educated people who take the responsibility of the CCW permit very seriously and many of us are veterans of the Armed Services (Navy for me-Go Navy!). Your points are well taken and spot on! The sooner that those who think that keeping guns out of the hands of Responsible people will solve all the gun violence that we are a great line of defense against those who could care less about your "gun free" zones, the better for Everyone! A Criminal sees a "gun free" zone and it is like an invitation to a smorgasbord!

Your actions will impose more restrains on the spectators. Please withdraw your case. It was a human tragedy. Sorry, but I do not support you.

Daggone there are some slick talking ambulance chasers out there! Unscrupulous lawyers convince people they have a valid lawsuit against a business because a patron of that business committed a crime during which another patron (the attorney's potential client) was injured. Should these people also sue the city when they stumble and sprain an ankle walking down the street? Or, better yet, when their cars are hit by someone running a red light, they should sue the county for failure to properly control traffic. And while they're at it, why don't they sue the production company for the movie because, it is plain to see, they idiot Holmes would not have even been there if the movie had not been showing, right? NO! Let's sue the comic company that first published the Batman comics. After all, if they had never printed that first Batman edition, none of this would ever have happened.

Yeh, yeh,yeh.

.. Wm. Shakespeare, Henry VI: "First, we must kill all the lawyers"

Jim @ #2.34: CCW holders are not some panic stricken mob who shoot at everything that moves, they are well disciplined individuals who are keenly aware of the consequences of discharging a firearm and the responsibility that goes with it. The police shoot and wound or kill far more innocent bystanders in panic than CCW holders. The latest shooting in New York City by a group of panic stricken police is the latest example.

Jim you have two issues of faulty logic here. First of all, though we would like to believe that all CCW licensees are, as you stated, "... keenly aware of the consequences of discharging a firearm and the responsibility that goes with it", we know that is not the case. As with everything else, you cannot judge the whole by selected parts. And parts of the whole are irresponsible and should not be allowed to carry a weapon at all. There are too many cases where a person with known psychological disorders was licensed to carry. Your first point is unsubstantiable.

Second point: "The police shoot and wound or kill far more innocent bystanders in panic than CCW holders. The latest shooting in New York City by a group of panic stricken police is the latest example." Unless you can provide proof of your contentions they are nothing more than the opinions of one person who comes off as being a 'cop hater'. Now, that's probably not the truth but that's what it sounds like when you refer to trained police officers who are required to undergo testing and evaluation and skills training on a regular basis as 'panic stricken' and depict them as being less competent to protect the public than a person who has no such training. And to suggest - to state outright - as truth that "...police shoot and ... kill far more innocent bystanders in panic than CCW holders" is downright libelous and defamatory. Part two of your argument: unsubstantiable.

In other words: you are merely spouting unsupported, anti-establishment, anti-authority rhetoric without provable truth and with nothing more to back it up than your opinions which are like ... belly-buttons.

Just a bogus suit how is the Theater responsible, I could see if this has occurred before but lets get a grip on some reality. And to PORK, did you complain when the GOP disenfranchised the POOR & ELDERLY, bet NOT, so STFU.

@NO 201No Ballots for US TROOPS overseas ~ MSNBC silent - You are either a gullible idiot or are knowingly posting completely false information. The federal government has nothing to do with sending out ballots to overseas military personnel. Absentee ballots are mailed out by the states in which the service members are registered to vote. It is on the individual states to ensure that absentee ballots are mailed out by the federally mandated deadline so that service members have adequate time to receive, fill in, and return their ballots before election day. Of course the fact that this post has nothing to do with the article also demonstrates that you are either a moron or a troll. Please go crawl back into your mom's basement and stay there with the computer off until you educate yourself enough to understand what you are posting.

Body armour or not he likely could have been stopped without a "bloodbath" had somebody had a gun and knew how to use it. Keep in mind I am somone who doesn't own a gun, but I would in a heartbeat if I felt I needed it to defend myself or my family.

Even trained police officers miss more than they hit in the "real world" (not a target range). Unfortunately, those misses often wind up in innocent bystanders. I can't imagine the carnage if untrained individuals were turned loose in a theatre or any other enclosed area. I don't mean training in the sense of target shooting, but in the ability to keep calm and clear-headed in an emergency situation. It is much more difficult than you might think. Without that ability, the odds of hitting a gunman rather than fellow patrons is really quite low.

Jeff-573598

I agree with most of what you are stating, however I believe that it could be shown that the theater did, in fact, have a "duty" which was breached.

Theaters have a responsibility to ensure that all patrons are "scrutinized" prior to being allowed in to view a movie. This duty arises in response to the movie rating system, i.e., not allowed to have minors in the theater when an R rated movie is being shown.

As a result of this "duty" it is imperative that the theater insures that there is only one method of entry to the building, and that all other portals are secure from outside entry.

The gunman, in this case, entered the theater thru an exit which the theater had a duty to make sure it was secure.

The elements of negligence are in place and the law suits will continue and most likely will be successful. The probable outcome will be a high dollar settlement offered by the theater owners.

I have mixed feelings about these lawsuits. I feel sorry for the victims and would like to see them compensated for their injuries/loses, but I am not real comfortable with putting that financial burden on the theater. It rightfully would be the responsibility of the offender, but we all know that there will be no way that the perpetrator will ever be able to compensate the victims.

They should sue themselves for going to the theater and thus placing themselves at risk of death or severe bodily harm!!!

Bruce:

While I respect your opinion, your quote belies your own conclusion, and your analogy is plain wrong.

Your quote "Theaters have a responsibility to ensure that all patrons are "scrutinized" prior to being allowed in to view a movie. This duty arises in response to the movie rating system, i.e., not allowed to have minors in the theater when an R rated movie is being shown." DEFEATS your own argument in that the "scrutinization" is for MINORS...not gun wielding adults.

Again...."duty" stems from "foreseeability". It IS foreseeable that a minor will try to get into a movie with a rating that he's not allowed into; it is NOT foreseeable that a mad man will commit mass-murder.

It IS foreseeable that someone will try to get into a theater through the back to avoid paying; it is NOT foreseeable that someone will come through the back in order to commit mass murder.

Reasonableness is another factor, and the more danger sought to be addressed, requires a higher duty. If a theater is concerned with ppl getting in without paying, IF they dont take measures to keep that from happening, what is the result ? a BIT of lost revenue; based on that, it would be reasonable for them NOT to take added measures to secure the door. IF, however, the what they seek to precvent are ppl coming in the back trying to kill others, they would have a higher duty, but since that was not foreseeable, they had no duty to act in that manner.

Jeff-573598

You have failed to understand my point. The theater has a duty to prevent entrance (the exit doors) by those not legally aloud to view a movie (per the rating system).

It then follows that the duty is to ensure that the exit doors are secure at all times. Had this duty been fulfilled, the gunman would not have been able to access the theater by that method.

Because the duty arises from a different set of circumstances and obligations does not relieve them of that duty in this set of circumstances.

As I said before, I have mixed feelings about these law suits, but I do believe that the theater did fail in the duty I have explained above. Thus, I think that the plaintiffs will prevail and the theater will be found culpable for a % of the damages,if it were to go to trial.

I further believe that the case will be settled out of court and the plaintiffs will receive some compensation from the theater's insurance company.

No, it is YOU who are missing MY point.

A "duty" is not all inclusive.

A duty to keep minors out of R rated films does NOT translate into a duty to keep a shooter out of the SAME door. (i.e., see my original post 2.22). Any particular duty is aimed, not at the world at large, but a segment. Thus, the duty to keep kids out (i.e., a duty TO a particular segment of society) to keep them from seeing a R rated show (i.e., duty to prevent a SPECIFIC type of harm), does NOT translate into a duty to protect EVERYONE from EVERYONE.

You also misapply the doctrine of what constitutes a breach, i.e., there is ONLY a duty to act "reasonably" in light of the harm sought to protect; thus, a duty to protect a youngster from seeing a naked woman, which, if breached would only result in minor harm to the child, as opposed to undertaking a duty to protect the moveigoers at large, from a gunman. the duties are different, because ONE case (the minor) is foreseeable"..the other peril, is not and thus, no duty to protect against it...nor does undertaking to prevent ONE calamity, impose a duty to prevent ALL calamities.

Your quote:

Because the duty arises from a different set of circumstances and obligations does not relieve them of that duty in this set of circumstances.

...is, simply an erroneous statement of law.

I completely agree with you, I know I would be complaining if tickets were $30 just for extra security...I guess we really shouldn't be surprised by this lawsuit, since we're a sue happy country. I just do not understand it, now do we need security for every public place, we live with lunatics and they are not going away anytime soon, in fact, there's going to be much more lunatics!! This can happen anywhere, and it is happening!! Stop suing!!! Doesn't help for anybody, just gets people more bitter and angry, and that's where we screw it up.

Same silly argument, and disingenuously argumentative position, every time. The ability to defeat this "crazy" person's plan of action is, and was, not that difficult or costly to implement. Your argument embraces both ignorance, and an obtuse unwillingness to LEARN from your negligent mistakes. Try getting hip to the "inexpensive" technologies available to you to thwart these kinds of simplistic attacks, then your ignorance won't border so closely on willful and "costly" stupidity.

I don't think they are going to win any law suit against this theater. This can happen any place ( a bus station, public restroom, McDonalds..etc.)..it was a planned attack in advance..not the theaters fault!

Basically you are saying they should have had the techno. to put an alarm on the side door? If there had been one, this nut would have just walked through and bought a ticket, it didn't matter he had spray painted hair or body armour, they wouldn't have stopped him from entering the complex, hell they prob. wouldn't even have found it that suspicious b/c A LOT of ppl dress up for these batman movies. So if they are suing b/c of a side door in the end if the guy was motivated enough, and it seems he was, he would have just went through the front.

If the theater knew someone would be entering their business with weapons to cause harm..then of course they should stop it some how or be responsible for damages..this case isn't that...they never knew.\

People sue people galore these days..easy money..read a lady sued a guy because he sneezed and it blew off her fake eye lash and fell into a sewer.

Well for those who win the law suit congrats the ticket prices will probably go up due to either increased security or we will now have to sign a waiver when we go to the movies.

Very true there Lady K..as for me..I'm in no hurry to see a movie..will wait until its on a DVD..might cost just the same as going to the theater anyway.

Paul, you also assume that any measures would not have been defeated. Not like he was a Middle School dropout, he was in an advanced college class. He obviously put a lot of planning, and no doubt, if they had low budget security measures, he likely would have included them in his plans...

Why do I know this? He was intent, he took careful measures, and by all accounts would not have been caught, if not for one small detail.

Precedence always dictates procedures, and aside from some teens using to sneek in the theatre, there was no known alarm.

Truth be told, the question has to be asked... why was he not on a watch list? How was he able to just assemble the mass materials for the explosives in his apartment, without authorities being notified? Since OK City, they have been monitoring the sale of all materials linked to making explosives, from manure to iodine. Yet, Aurora was clueless?

What about Homeland Security? They seems to know detailed info on suspected bombing attempts, yet they didn't have a clue that one individuals was a massing a small arsenal of weapons and ammo and the materials to constructed (as authorities described) a sophisticated bomb.

I agree, Darkshadow. Did these people make it a point to scope out the theater whenever they went to a movie, and leave if they didn't think security was adequate? I doubt it. They haven't got a case.

Paul, you sound like their lawyer. Here's the deal, many theaters have more than one exit besides the main one. So an alarm does no good because it is not an emergency exit. Of course you will just say that all people should be made to exit from the main entrance to the theater right? Here's an idea, stop blaming the victims, which include the theater and blame the shooter, who is the only one responsible for the attack. Yes it was a tragedy, but if we live in fear and alter everything we do because of that fear, they win. This guy obviously scoped out this beforehand. Like others said he probably would have just gone through the front door killing who knows how many others or just picked a different target. His mission was to kill and he would have found some place to do it. The same 'what if' scenario can be used to thwart your argument as well.

I DO wonder, though -

If this jurisdiction were one where concealed weapons permits were freely given, would it have given the gunman pause ? I mean, if odds were that there would be several armed people in the theater, would he have gone there ?

I have heard (no personal knowledge) that there are counties in Texas where everyone is armed, and the crime rate is very low.

Anyone have any knowledge on that ?

Nah - tickets will be the same price they are now - but that popcorn and coke will be about $700.

Uh, Paul...you sound like a politician - all fluff and no details. Care to elaborate on these "simple" solutions?

Instead of telling us to Google something, why don't you supply a link to a credible source? Usually, when someone says "Google it", it means that they don't have any proof to back their assertions.

If the criminal had any money, they would sue him - but as it stands, what would they win? He'll spend his life institutionalized and never earn another dime. The theater has money - hence they must somehow be responsible.

My thoughts exactly. I suppose the theater was supposed to have .50 cal machine gun nests at each corner, bomb proof glass, explosives sniffing equipment, metal detectors at each door and guard dogs.

These lawsuits get more stupid every year.

Those doors are not only emergency exits, they are used by patrons to exit the theater. No need nor requirement for an alarm. Since it's not required by law there can be no fault on the part of the theater for not having alrms on the doors.

joy57111,

No, the theater is not responsible in this situation. Fire yes. Food poisoning yes. When there is a will there is a way. This nut wanted to kill people, he would have found some way to do it.

They should only serve as mere exits when the film is over. During the film, they should be alarmed and automatically sound an alarm and call the fire and police, if opened. A vestibule arrangement would also be a smart move on all "exits", emergency or not.

I think I heard mention of a possible accomplise that may have opened the door for this guy but haven't seem any more details or reports that there are any other suspects. IF there is any other party involved though doubt they have money to sue for either.

No matter what ticket prices will go up but I don't think the theaters can afford the extra cost of installing super security or hiring armed guards. I don't think the (teenage generally) concession workers/ticket takers etc. would or should be expected to act as security. I guess the safest thing to do would to be to rent movies and view them at home.

A very basic security camera system would answer your question on whether he had an accomplice. A vestibule system would eliminate the possibility of unauthorized re-entry. This is fairly low tech security solutions being IGNORED. The theater chain will settle or their insurer will.

How many of you crying that the door should have been alarmed or there should have been cameras, guards, etc have been in the scenario that took place in the theater?

Okay, the door is alarmed. The gunman just moves a little faster. And, instead of a seated target pool he has a mass of confused moviegoers standing up thinking there is a fire, making easier targets.

Cameras are passive and require someone to watch them, then react. How long was the gunman firing? Could someone watching the camera gotten into the theater in time to stop him?

Security guards? See above re:cameras.

Plus, if you have anyone that is armed responding then it becomes a shootout and an unknown number will die from friendly-fire.

Plus you all seem to forget that the killer carefully planned the attack, at the theater and with his home defensive systems. What would have prevented him from overcoming all of the challenges the door alarms, cameras, guards, etc would have presented? Or what would have prevented him from choosing an easier target? The guy is an A-1 whackjob and he was intent on killing a lot of people (look at his apartment for more proof of that). There was no way to stop him.

They should only serve as mere exits when the film is over. During the film, they should be alarmed and automatically sound an alarm and call the fire and police, if opened. A vestibule arrangement would also be a smart move on all "exits", emergency or not.

No, it shouldn't. Emergency exits that alarm are ALWAYS emergency exits. You don't let people use them sometimes. If you do then people will use them when they are not supposed to and the fire and police get pretty peeved when they show up for nothing. It's just plain dumb to expect a company to attempt to protect their patrons from every single possible problem. Would it be their fault if a meteor had stuck the building? Besides, even if it were alarmed, there would have been plenty of time to unload all his guns before any authorities showed up.

Hind sight is always 20/20, but everyone's foresight sucks the same. I'll bet no one - owner, patron or employee ever though that maybe someone would walk in thorough a back door and start shooting away.

This lawsuit is dumb. I hope the judge has the balls to toss it out of court on day one.

Problem with your idea paul-977599 is that what is to stop someone's brat from hitting the emergency exit door before the movie is fully over to get outside to clear the area before the rush. Biggest problem is those emergency exits would sound the alarms though all the theaters and ruin everyone else's enjoyment of the movie they paid to see. Think about that before you head into the theaters again. Look at the start times of the movies, not think how many people would be leaving the theater as soon as the credits start to roll on their movie. Want to bet that if that emergency exit alarm goes off, your going to head for the nearest door while they check for a problem that would actually be an emergency. How about wasting your $7 ticket because some kid in another theater did not want to waste the minute to walk out the front door.

I have read numerous post here that claim that patrons routinely use the "emergency" exits to leave the theater after the movie is over. I have never seen this happen and wonder why anyone would do so. Those exits generally lead to alleys and the rear of buildings in strip malls or shopping centers. It would be along walk from there back to the parking areas. Patrons leave by the exits designated for that purpose because that is the shortest route back to their vehicles.

As far as alarms on these doors are concerned, I have noticed (since this incident) that some are alarmed and some are not. Why the difference, I am not sure, maybe the local building codes, locations, etc.

What the theater could have or should have done differently to prevent this tragedy, I'm not sure. I am sure that there will be or are allot of loss prevention companies looking at solutions, after the fact.

things are expensive because of greed.

very little about price is about value. in fact some things are over priced to give them a scene of vaule. or to create. Like 300.00 shoes that are have a few dollars of raw good and a touch of labor.

so what i do not get is, we already over pay for things to make the 2% rich. why not tax things and use those taxs to make all of our lives better, not just the 2%?

nwww that would be communistic? right? well since we love capitalism so much why do we cry when it sends our jobs a way or when it gets sick people denied medical help? come on people do we really need to be so mean to each other?

"Greed is good. Greed works".

mostly for the seller and rarely for the buyer.

@ami1313:

Are you one of those "occupy" nincompoops? You sound bitter and jealous that some people have faired better in life than you yourself have and so think that they should be penalized..

Just like the "occupiers" you are long on gimme, gimme, gimme and take, take , take from the "rich" and yet have offered no sensible alternatives.

FYI: "things" as you call them are already taxed. For those of us who work for a living, the IRS confiscates portions of our paychecks for the government to waste on things that politicians hope will get them reelected and keep them in their cushy jobs. The reaminder fo our paycheck , which the government has decided we be allowed to hold onto and spend is then taxed at the gas pump, taxed at the checkout counter of retail stores, taxed as an entertainment tax at movies, music venues and amusement parks et.al., taxed by charging us admission to parks which our previously taxed monies went to establish, our property, if we are fortunate enough to own any is taxed every year so that local beauracracies can pay off debt that they incurred "in the public interest"- shall I go on?

Heck! Why don't we all just wrok for free and let the government hand us all vouchers and ration cards every month based on what they think we need to get by with. That's the kind of system you are for isn't it? That way others can do the work and you can still have all your "things".

Take a shower, get a haircut and a job and leave our money for us to spend as we see fit, not you or the government.

Heck! Why don't we all just wrok for free and let the government hand us all vouchers and ration cards every month based on what they think we need to get by with. That's the kind of system you are for isn't it? That way others can do the work and you can still have all your "things".

That is EXACTLY what the liberal Democrats want. To get as many ppl dependent on government entitlements as possible; of course, HUGE tax hikes will be needed to fund it.

This is not supposition, folks - Take a look at the magnitude and number of tax hikes Obama is advocating.

LOOK at the number of Central American countries now in the process of becoming tax free havens. LOOK at how real estate has flourished in Central America. The reason is because it is anticipated that an Obama victory in November WILL result in the mass exodus of money from the U.S.

cmdr358

you at like you know any thing about me. you do not know a single thing about me. but anyway.

i feel i should point out, i am not using the ISP of the public library or a stolen wifi line. i pay for my isp and every thing else i own. so yea you do not know what you talking about. hair? I shave my head often. so yea again you know nothing. A JOB? do you even know how old i am? For all you know i am 12 or 65. so again you know nothing. and as far as things go, the last time some paid for some thing that was mine i was a nine. so again you know zero.

cmdr358

do you know that all those sales taxes you are crying about can be wrote off on you taxes. and did you know poor people do not file taxes and do not get that money back. so poor people pay more in taxes. did you know all those other taxes you cry about go to SS and that black and brown people die before they reach SS retirement age, they too pay more taxes then most whites.

and the politicians you cry about, you voted for them. poor people and blacks and browns do not vote that much. so the old white ladies that do vote are the ones you need to be mad at.

i know i didnt vote for BUSH. and i know Clinton and Obama are just slightly more worthwhile then all the bushes and Ron.

ooo. and taxes on gas pave roads so why are you crying about that. do not want to pave the roads ride a bus. wait bus fairs also pave the roads so walk. lazy.

property taxes pay for schools do you really want dumb kids running rampant?

Heck! Why don't we all just wrok for free and let the government hand us all vouchers and ration cards every month based on what they think we need to get by with.

LOL!

cmdr358
the

2% have already done that. they bought access to D.C. and have the ear of our Government, they get law that work for them and hurt the rest of us. OWS is not your enemy.
fact is you are you worst own enemy. you vote for people that do not have your interest in mind. the 2% only care about making money and leave the U.S. like that facebook punk did. he was the 1st but shortly most of the 2% will leave after they have stole everything and who know what will be left. i am sure the teabagger will kill/lock up all none whites and kick off a civil war. so keep going with the GOP but make sure you have money to run when the 2% bail like rats jumping a sinking ship.

Getting sued for something beyond your control is simply the cost of doing business? That is enough reason right there why these lawsuits need to be stopped. People think it's just the cost of doing business and have to get their windfall. So I guess it's not the loved ones getting killed that's important, it's that their survivors won the lottery....

aml--thats absurd. The theater should bear no responsibility. Get a life.

do you really think that is my main point? LOL!

aml1313: yes, basically life is unfair. If you chose not to study in highschool, perhaps you won't get a high paying job that lets you buy a big screen tv, a cadillac and nice healthcare. How would you ever prevent an attack like this? Having machine gun pits around the theater might have stopped it, but wait, what if one of those security guards had been th eone who went nuts. Life's possibilities are endless and you can't prepare (or be compsenated) for all of them.

Aml- your ridiculous dude!! Just another money hunger loser
ready to sue everyone else. First off what would the alarm had mattered?? The guy
was there for a reason and no alarm was going to stop him! Its people like you
that drive up cost in insurance premiums and everything else in this world… the
theater had nothing to do with it and if it was your business you would look at
it differently but obviously your sitting around on you azz collecting food
stamps and only worried about you.

your right. suing is harmful. heck with out suing there could still be so many products i could buy and if they are unsafe well that is just my bad luck. lol.

but any how. your right doctors should not need malpractice insurance. if the doctor kills me well it was just bad luck.

but we should all have insurance on our cars because when some hits me with their car it is their fault and not bad luck??????

ooo and jcw1 i did not know people with food stamps could get internets. lol.

anyway. i am not saying people should sue. my point is, leave theses people alone, you do not know them you are not them. give them a break. they have had run of bad luck. no need to add insult to their injury.

every one here is too quick to call names and protect the movie theater. who have lawyers for that.

aml1313,

But what happens there will affect us all...

Think about this for a second.. you don't leave the back door unprotected.

Should Apple protect the people waiting for "The Apple 5" phone.....yes, It does bring that glimmer of the Media and could bring some wacko out to start some s%!#.

This movie was sold out...that should have been enough to say, Will somebody sneak in________________?(fill in the blank).

Not much differents than a sold out concert, you don't leave the back door unprotected.

That's just ridiculous. Small business owners can't hold on to money just in case some psycho goes crazy and starts killing people!!!! ANy suits should be limited to the amount of coverage the business has and no more. WHy in god's name would you want to put the business owner, who BTW, is a victim TOO, out of business????

i agree with you for the most part. i find issue with people saying ugly thing about the people who are suing.

what choice do they have?

to just suck it up?

well then shouldnt the theater suck it up too, since you said they was victim too. but wait they are victims twice. because they are being sued. will any one help the theater? shoot why not lynch the people that are suing so we can protect the theater?

but yea two wrongs do not make a right.

they make a circle. and life is unfair and all that right?

so if getting killed is just a unfair thing, why is being sued the same thing?

i think its all bs.

but i do think we need to stop being so mean to each other.

bullies to tend to end up killing some one or being killed.

and yet we really do not even try to stop bullies.

and why dont we?

because life sucks and you have to just deal with it.

well fine.

but can we not pass judgment on how others deal with the unfairness in their personal lives!!

I agree with you on some aspects. These people are either trying to cover medical expenses and emotional trauma caused by this incident or trying to cash it, I hope the former vice the later. This incident caused a great deal of trauma, there are medical bills to be paid and most likely time out of work or school, which was not due to their own fault.

However, the theater was not the cause of these problems. Even if the door had an alarm and the alarm went off, he could still have walked in a shot a great deal of people. If there was a security guard that would be a deterrent, not a barrier.

The fact of the matter is the theater has money. If these people were truly trying to reclaim damages for their injuries and trauma, they should sue the shooter. However, he is an out of work Grad student that has no money. Therefore, they are suing someone that does have money, that is the simple fact in this case.

Secondly, if they are suing to ensure this doesn't happen to people at theaters in the future they shouldn't be focused on this incident. They should voice their opinion for stricter or more open gun laws. Every gun the shooter purchased were bought legally, so you can enforce stricter gun controls to ensure this doesn't happen. Or you can go back to the basic freedom of Americans, which is to own and maintain a firearm and protect themselves.

I am not saying life sucks and people should just deal with it. They should just hold those accountable that are accountable. Everyone that walked into that theater assumed they were safe or they wouldn't have gone to see the movie. You assume something is safe whenever you go anywhere, if you don't think it is safe and go there anyway then you knowingly assume risk, that is life. The shooter is accountable he should be sued, not the people that have more money and that is the only reason.

About the bully part, I was bullied I stood up to the bullies and they left me alone. Being bullied is about a choice to be a victim or not. I am not saying go out and shoot someone, if you are a target people will treat you as a target. Don't act like a target and people will leave you alone.

@1959, whoever was watching the back door would have been the first victim. The outcome would have been very similar, unless the door was bolted shut.

To OP...life IS unfair.

Proof: nice people get cancer too, not just bad people.

The idea that people cause all misery and coercion is nonsense. Nature is the biggest killer in history, and the most coercive force in existence. This WAS just bad "luck"...get over it.

BTW..."luck" doesn't exist. In mathematics it's called Variance.

Favorable Variance ("good luck") = Preparation + Well Timed Aggression + Opportunity

Simplified:

FV = P + A + O

where O is a function of Variance, and P and A can (and almost always will, given enough trials) decrease that Variance. Every second of your life is a trial.

Unfavorable Varaince = "bad lack" = UV

UV = O - A - P

or

UV = O + A - P

or

UV = O - A + P

So, in other words, it's not enough to be prepared OR agressive...you must be both to be "lucky".

We mostly make our own "luck" in life.

Or, you could be the 2% and steal it from some one else using the rules to rape the not so smart.

so again, as said, it clear every one posting thinks this was just bad luck and that life is unfair and that people should just let it go?

so again, i ask if it was you or your loved that was murdered would you just let it go.

i think only the Amish know how to forgive.

the rest you want prison time.

and the people suing want money.

but what about life being unfair and letting go?

my point is, we need to stop saying life is unfair and calling things bad luck. and we need to start looking at the cost of doing things. look at the risk. and pay for that risk. customer and owner alike.

its to easy to just say: it was a bad thing sorry, carry on.

we need to hold each other to a higher stranded. Fairness can happen if we stop hitting each other with life is unfair hammer!

aml--Again, your comment is absurd.

i think only the Amish know how to forgive.

Guess you don't read all the news.

Put "Amish charged with hate crime" in your search engine.

so again, why should the movie theatre pay... your saying anytime a psycho does something bad at a public buisness that the buisness should pay for it? Why? Your saying hold each other to a higher standard? How is suing the crap out of anyone you can doing that? You are supporting ignorance. congratulations.

@alm1313

But life is unfair, bad luck happens to all of us at some point and time. It's called reality. How will suing the theater makes things fair? Are you saying prison time is not appropriate? Justice will be done, the shooter will get life in prison or death and to me, that is justice. People are not saying "too bad, move on", people are just saying to try and hold the theater accountable for something they could not have reasonable prevented is not logical. There is no lack of empathy for these people and their families. Are you saying these lawsuits are the answer, because I am not sure I get your point.

you are missing my point. i am not condoning suing per se. i am calling out the people bad mouthing the people bring the law suit. because what they are saying is that life is unfair and that the people suing should just get over it. at least that is how they are coming off in their comments.

my bigger point is, that life is only unfair because we treat each other unfairly.

Bad things do not happen in a vacuum. that is a fact. we need to stop telling each other this lie.

things do not happen at random.

choices are made.

choices are made by humans with brains, fate is not real. bad luck is not real.

choices are real. and we all have to pay for our choices.

but too many of us want choices to only be paid for by the main actor.

but all our choices hurt/help all of us. and that is a fact.

stop trying to blame everything on the boggy man that is "unfairness" or "bad luck".

People are bad-mouthing the law suit because it's a STUPID law suit. Period!

no one is blaming anything on anything! We are saying that it is not right to sue the theatre company. What happened that day was a horrendous and no one deserved it. I have nothing negative to say about these people, just that they should not be suing. SOOOO dont try to cover it up. You obviously condone it so just say it. Dont cop out on some bull that is completely irrelevant to this article and our comments.

Alm...your an idiot...

Bad things don't happen in a vacuum? Really? Really?! Science would prove you wrong...

And yes, life has bad luck. What will you tell the person that dies at 23 with cancer? Who will they blame? Themselves? What about their parents for giving them that f-up gene?

By your standards, and ideas...children should be able to sue their parents for genetic disorders. After all its their parents fault...

I am so glad we don't live in a country where you are in a position of power to 'change' said country.

Again, you are saying suing the theater somehow makes everything OK, and will cause people to stop being dicks to others? You keep saying I am missing your point, and that is one thing I can agree with.

I think AML is one of the people who's suing. He seems way too defensive about this.

I think AML is a troll....

i live in Texas. i know no one in the state that this happened.

and for the most part i agree that suing is going to do little for any one. but the lawyers.

and i see what you all are saying. but again. you all are missing my point.

i do not think bad things happen in a vacuum, it takes choices. choices make things happen, even the choice to do nothing is a choice.

and my big point is these people suing have very little choices before them. and most of them suck.

and seeing what kind of world we all live in and must live in, i can't find fault in their actions. i will not blame them for their choice to sue.

more power to them.

will it fix anything? no. because every single person here agrees that life is unfair.

i do not agree. we all are born and we all die. and it is random who dies when. so live long some live short. and no one knows who will die or not die today. so why be sad about death.

but 50% to 75% of what happens between death and birth, is caused by others choices. and it is those choices that cause harm to some and enrich a select few. and that is the facts.

i find people who talk about excepting the unfairness of life are in the midst of do something unfair to some one some where.

and i am sick of it. and i am going to call the world out on it. treat each other better. what do we have to loss? money? what is that worth? money buys things you need but how many things do you really need? and why is it all the things you need most are only sold? you want to sell me gas but you want me to pay how much a barrel? maybe i should make war on you land for your oil so that you will sell it to me for less? would that be wrong? or just unfair? and unfair of who? think about that.

\

------

on a side note. if i was murdered i would not want the person sent to jail. that is not bring me back. i would like to have not been killed in the 1st place. and yes my killer is solely to blame. but come on really, do not any one see how much of a cop out it is to blame only the dude that killed me? na man. if some one killed me. and if i could come back as a ghost i would be killing everyone that was to blame not just that one dude. but that is just me, i like living. unlike every one else that is ready to accept their impending death.

\\\

and no, i am not a troll.

i just find it hard to get up set about people in pain looking for some one to blame for their pain. they might be wrong. but i will not be the one to call them on it!

You are contradicting yourself all over the place! If you were murdered you would not want to blame the person who killed you?! Really? I sure as hell would since they just killed me! Just let them go free to kill more people? You say we are all born and die, but then you say "unlike everyone else that is ready to accept their impending death..." WTF. I am sure you are trying to make some brillant point here, but it is just comming off as rambling and you are repeating your same non-sense "points" over and over again. I feel like I am hitting my head against a brick wall here, so I am done.

The employees of this theater and the theater owners were also victims of this crime!!!! So we should sue these victims???? absolutely NOT!!!! Aml1313 use some common sense!!!

common sense? CD's are 9.00

MEDS are 100's a pill.

i think we all lost common sense a long time ago.

only greed drives prices. and only mean people hurt others. that is common sense. and i am not saying these people should being suing. i am just saying i do not blame them.

and i could care less if it cost me more on tickets.

and i am saying all victims live in ugly world, so don't judge.

and as long as we all agree that life sucks, what does it matter?

and

Keith W Seattle WA
my contradictions are really unrelated points.
and yes i am not easy to read.
but hay life is unfair. deal.

IT WAS SOLD OUT...ok....Next time you go to the movies, sold out or not. Before the movie starts "PLEASE TURN YOUR CELL PHONES OFF" and "The rear exit is for exiting only".

Next time you go to the movies, sold out or not. Before the movie starts "PLEASE TURN YOUR CELL PHONES OFF" and "The rear exit is for exiting only".

"and, please dont forget to silence and holster your weapons"

clearly some of the poster here too me just a bit too literal. but i do stand by my statements about fairness, life is fair. We all die.

Unfairness comes for our actions and our greed and our indifference.

Keith W Seattle WA

reality is what we all agree it is!

Slavery used to be ok. at the time if a slave said it was unfair he would have been told it was reality and would be beat or killed.

the way things are, are that way because more of us agree to it and play along then not.

and that goes to unfairness too.

? one armed guard is too much ?

but wait lets get to the real issue.

we live i a world that says, i know it sucks you lost a loved one, but too bad, you will have to suffer on with out them, you will have to find a way to replace them and society at large does not really care about your loss.

that is the world we live and that is what every one here is really saying.

every one here is saying...

boo who who...too bad for you. touch luck. but what do you want? its not like we enough to help you with your loss, we have our own issues to worry about.

Wow, really? Guess what, everyone loses loved ones. Some early, some late, some unexpected. Noone is saying they do not care. There are many funds set up for this, and recently they just dispersed 5Million to help the families and victims.

All anyone says is you cannot lay blame to others for what 1 man did. Thats it..

and what i am saying is this:

that is a cop out.

bin laden and his supporters was just a few, but i am sure a lot more people paid for that then what was involved.

but back to my point.

for the past 30 years i have been told that life is unfair.

but what i see is all of us are messed up to each other.

and when bad things happen we want blood, but the fact is we bring it on our selfs.

may be if we did let life be filled with abuse, bulling, and unfairness ... just maybe life would not be filled with those things.

we pay no mind to the messages we send.

tell a broken mind life is unfair and your telling that person that do bad is ok.

because kids do not see things as fair or moral.

kids are simple.

and when you tell a kid wrong things happen and they should suck it what your really saying is

doing wrong is ok at times.

just like white lies.

lies are lies.

wrong is wrong.

and people lie and do wrong because we try to split hairs.

stop splitting hairs and stand up to unfair actions now. and in 40 years we might have a better world

.

and even if it changes not one bit.

do we really risk anything by stopping unfairness? what is the up side of teaching inequality?

aml1313: As I said before, yes 1 armed guard is too much, IF THE ARMED GUARD WAS THE ONE WHO WENT NUTS. Get it, you simply CAN NOT prevent everything bad from happening. For years everybody though a simple metal detector scan was fine for getting on an airplane until 1 day some men snuck on some small box cutters.

what is the upside of listening to your comments aml? Im sorry you have been babied your whole life and feel that everytime someone does something bad to you the entire world should just empty their wallets out to you. Millions supported them with charitable donations. Im sorry it was not enough for them. Now hardworking americans are also going to be struggling because of their company getting sued for something they had no control over.... and no i do not feel they should hire security guards. what is the percentage rate of this happening at a theatre? If this is what it is coming to just to go see a movie then count me out altogeher. Again you make no sense and are irrelevant. sorry if thats unfair.

alm = idiot...

Nuff said. And your flabbergasted response just proves our points, especially when this comment section is littered with people calling you as such.

stephanie8609 babied? ROFLMAO! you know nothing about me. i was never babied. i know way too much of the disgusting things the world is.

and i do not feel i have any thing owned me.

but i do owe the world a bit of my mind on how cold it is. i have a right to say, we bring all of this on our selves. things do not happen in a vacuum.

if i am murdered it will be by some one i know. and it will be because of some thing i did.

if some one breaks into my home. they did it because i choose to let them know i had things to steal.

every bad thing that has ever happened to me was my fault. i made choices that lead to the crimes that took place against me. i made those choices.

i own all of it. and so should every one else.

what is the value of justice if one can be held harmless and another be held fully to blame? if some one comes to steal my bread, because they need some thing to eat, and i refused to feed them, who is more wrong? sure i can be a jerk and say get your own bread, but that leaves them with the choice to be a jerk and stab me for my bread. because being uncaring for the starving is not going to make the staving person less hungry or more civil is it??????????????

You most ceratinly have some messed up ideas Aml13113. People don't break into your home because of any thing you did, a person who murders is a straight up criminal and is responsible. Some times people do have to kill in self defense or to save others but that is a wholedifferent story. Every bad thing that happensto peope is NOT all their own fault. Bad things happen, whether its' like the theater, a car accident, a rape, hurricane or other natural disaster etc.. etc.. Time to grow up and get over the nonsense your spewing. If you can't then I think seeking mental health counseling is warranted.

nonsense? what nonsense? think? you really think i do not think? every one here just wants to poop on the 3 people suing.

they are the ones not thinking!

and no. most people are killed by some one they know. and most stealing is because they saw you had stuff to steal. ask a cop! and i am not blaming victims. i was only replying to the fool that said i must have been babied.

and i am not spewing anything. i am just making my case. defending my self when needed. and speaking up for the 3 parties suing. i do agree with their choice to sue but i understand it.

loss can make you do bad things.

so why do people get mad when some one is murdered?

think about what your really saying.

why have laws?

there are no guarantee?

life is unfair just deal with it?

so if life is so unfair and it should be dealt with why not just take you money out of the ATM and toss it in the street. because Maddoff could just steal it!

do get what i am say.

life is only messed up when we all agree that messed up things can't be fixed.

the pain these people are feeling can be fixed.

its just money people.

So ok.. My kid fell off your porch with a screwdriver in his hand. You had told him screwdrivers were not allowed, but he did it anyway. So now that he is hurt, or dead, I am gonna sue you for everything you got. That gives me the pleasure of making you feel bad, taking your stuff, and having your money for myself.

Whatever, get off yourself, oh and you better keep your kids at home, we definitely don't want them playing with ours.

the pain these people are feeling can be fixed.

This right here says it all.

You think money will make all the pain go away.

I got stung by a bee that left your yard the other day. I had a bad reaction to it and will now sue you for 500,000 dollars for lost work, pain and suffering and mental anguish.

My pain can only be fixed with money though.

So aml1313, you're saying the theater should just throw money out for the victims even though they had no control of the psycho that did the shooting. Truth be known it is the lawyers that will get most of the money anyway.

I would rather have people pay for their crimes, then give them 3 hots and a cot.

but i agree we can't fix things with money.

but then again.

WE HAVE MADE everything about money.

you are no one if you do not have money.

we as a society have made money into status.

and you are mad at me ?

i did not make this society the money grubbing lot that it is.

we/society forces people to work, and forces every to do so many things. but at same time we cry about having others take things from us.

the Natives was right, you can't own land.

we forced that on them and we forced god and money on to them and on to our selfs.

so since this is what we are, can you blame any one for any thing? our way of life demands you pay to play. you cant live in this world unless you pay the worker bee game.

so when some one finds a way to short cut that, i can't blame them for trying.

Maddoff happened because we put so much value on money, so if these 3 people see away to steal some money more power to them.

because in this world that we made. you do have to steal it. no one is going to give you millions you have to steal it.

every one in the GOP likely stole theirs. at least that is my opinion. i might be wrong.

never the less. you have to admit its hard to make millions with out breaking some eggs.

or laws or by doing some thing questionable.

like suing a poor innocent harmless movie theater.

Robert-2302414

Lawyers get 2/3 of the money.

and yes that is a lot.

but again. i am sure some where some said that it was unfair that lawyers get 2/3 and also i am sure some said, well life is unfair chap.

so yea, lets all just agree that life is unfair and tell the 3 people suing to get over it.

he!! why do you not tell them your self and put it on pay-per-view. i would pay to see you say such things to them. i want to see how cold you could be to them. that i would pay for. and that money could then be given to them.

you really are missing my point.

every one here is.

you all are taking me way too literal .

alm, pay for that and I WILL TELL THEM!

Its not about being cold, its about knowing who is at fault, THE GUNMAN, not the theatre.

we are not missing any point alm...you are talking so nuts, that everyone thinks your nuts, cause you are.

Just STFU aml. No one here agrees with you one bit, and for good reason. And btw, the lawyer gets 1/3, not 2/3.

Hopefully the judge assigned to these stupid lawsuits will throw them out at the pre-trial hearing.

lawyers only get 1/3 when there is a rule in place saying they get that amount.

I happen to understand and agree with most of what aml1313 is trying to say. Check out my previous post about the culpability of the theater ( #2.43).

The theater is partially responsible for granting access to the gunman (failure to secure the exits).

The gunman is responsible for his actions.

The victims had no culpability in this crime.

The theater will eventually pay their % of liability to the victims.

The victims cannot be made whole by any judgement, but some compensation will go a long way towards making them feel better about themselves and or loss of a loved one.

Most victims have a feeling of having done something wrong and, thus contributed to their own victimization. The awarding of fault aimed at another helps the individual victim to displace the blame that they felt. So, sometimes the suing of a third party, the imprisonment of the perpetrator, etc. is necessary for the victim to recover from a very traumatic experience.

Whether or not you agree with the law suits in no way makes what the victims are doing or feeling any of your business. No one commenting here has any idea of the motives of the individuals bringing these suits.

Whether or not you agree with the law suits in no way makes what the victims are doing or feeling any of your business. No one commenting here has any idea of the motives of the individuals bringing these suits

all i know is i feel safer at six flags. which does have metal detectors. and we pay their over priced prices.

Too bad I stashed a handgun way in the back by the fence before I entered to pick up later.

How safe do you feel now?

A metal detector only works if I put the gun through it.

aml1313: Just think as a criminal for a minute. How hard would it be to get a weapon into Six Flags, even though they have metal detectors. And then, how would you keep a guy from crashing a Cessna into the ferris wheel. Do you still feel safe now? The possibilities are endless, you simply can not legislate (or compensate) for everything. I get the feeling you are about 19 and just woke up to the fact that the world is indeed a dangerous place to live. KInd of makes you appreciate what a smaller, limited government has in fact given us: FREEDOM. And sometimes freedom backfires.

alm I don't need a gun to kill you, and a metal detector wouldn't stop me from doing so at six flags...

your idea that somehow it will stop everything bad from happening...well is wrong, nature truly doesn't care, and we are only part of nature.

elitewolverine you are blaming nature? wait every one is blaming one man. your blaming nature?

LOL! nature has nothing to do with homicide. and yea not every crime can be stopped. but just waiting around and cleaning up the mess is silly. shoot why have morning and stuff then?

I think it's past time that everybody just STOP responding to aml1313's comments. Aml thinks that aml is right about absolutely everything that aml says. that aml does, that aml will do at any time in the future and we all have to be wrong about everything we say because aml1313 SAYS SO. AML1313, take your meds, go to bed and rest your severely weary head. Nighty-night!!!!!

roflmaoayfsfytyfmah!!

what just because i will not be part of the verbal lynching of the people suing i am in the wrong?

Yep!!! IF you say so!!! Wouldn't want to agitate you further and set you off!!!! As I said before sweetie pie, take those meds and say nitey, night!!!!

StunnedByTheAge
criminals always take the path of least resistance! period...

I had understood that Holmes had gone in and opened the emergency exit (used something to keep it open, too, I thought). He went out, rigged himself up with all his armor and guns and came back in through the emergency exit. I don't recall anything about an alarm on the emergency exit, though I have seen many places that did have one on those type of doors.

The article I read was he went in and started shooting then went outside the exit and waited for people to come out and shot them when they started scattering.

so as long as one man is the issue WE call all wash our hands of this?

that is sad.

think about it. this thing happened because of one man. so hence we do not have to care, we do not have to help, we owe no one any thing.

and after saying things like this.

we wonder why every once i while one of us does some thing so ugly to an other/others.

i think it is because we are ALL to quick to wash our hands of others peoples pain and struggles.

we are to quick to say

suck it up

move on

get over it

with coldness like that

how can we be mad when one of us kills one of us?????

ITCowboy-Well said.

ITCowboy---Well said.

Geez aml, we've heard your argument already, several times. You've got your opinion and others have their opinion, which, by the way, they are entitled to without your constant yammering.

But the theatre did post that no guns were allowed by the patrons. If the patrons had been able to carry within their state laws, MAYBE the gunman would not have been able to kill/wound so many. As to the emergency exit being blocked open and no alarm was sounded, well that sounds like someone was skimping on proper maintainance. Lets a jury decide when all the facts come out, all the folks ripping apart/endorsing the plantiffs need to bone up on the law.

i think it is because we are ALL to quick to wash our hands of others peoples pain and struggles.

How does millions of dollars wipe away the pain of lost lives? If you can erase your pain with cash, you didn't have any pain to begin with.

I have to begin to wonder which one of these legal teams you're working for. Or are you one of the family members that is suing?

If the patrons had been able to carry within their state laws, MAYBE the gunman would not have been able to kill/wound so many.

Or maybe even more killed since it was too dark to see anything. The last thing that was needed was even more people shooting in the dark.

@aml1313 - I realize you are trolling but I am going to bite anyway. Since you feel so strongly about your point maybe you should pay these three people what they are looking for in court. As you said, it is only money right? You are just as much at fault that this tragedy as the movie theater is. People haven't stopped caring nor have the forgotten. People are simply saying, you can't sue someone who isn't in the least at fault simply because they have money.

@subdoc - these doors in movie theaters are NOT emergency exit doors. They are just exit doors. All the large city movie theaters operate this way. Everyone exits through them. Therefore, they are not meant to be alarmed. When was the last time you went to a movie? Or do you live in podunckville where you have one show a night and you exit through the front door?

i am not trolling. not that i even understand what that is. i am 38 and the NET is new to me. lol.

so to speak. never mind my hotmail was set up in 1992. but anyway. if movies costed 5.00 buck more because of these silly peoples law suites what am i am really losing? 5.00? i would rather pay that, its wroth more then welfare. but that is a other can of worms.

any way. i do not see them winning. but if they do i will not be mad about it. it is again just money. we place too much value on it. i mean really!?!?!? i have to pay 9.00 for a CD!??! 9.00 bucks! it is worth what two cents. but i pay it. if i can pay the nine how much is my money wroth any way. you got get what i am say. a cd with 12 songs. one to 3 hits and the rest filler. is worth a whole hour of my labor? but 30$ for a movie ticket to a theater with guards and metal detectors and other things is too much. (shoot the hot dogs cost 7.00.) that is some how going to break my bank? what ? really? the bank spends millions to be safe, and yet they can charge me a small monthly fee, for checking! so come on, you all are being silly.

aml1313-Just a suggestion. You said you were new to the internet. Spend some time reading articles and the comments by posters, then come back and comment. However, I am done responding to you.

haugfys?

Maybe you're right esbee, the victims should sue Hollywood for producing the movie to begin with.

And then sue the city for providing the road that the gunman drove down to get to the theater

Then you would need to sue whatever GPS service this dip was using for providing him a way to the theatre

We should sue whoever manufactured the car he drove, the oil company that provided the gas for the car, the tire company that provided the tires on the car, whoever maintained the car, etc, etc, etc.

Hell, we should sue each other for discussing this post. I've already contacted my attorney to file papers against aml1313 for being a troll.

Don't forget to sue fandango for selling you your tickets.

and most of the places you spoke of have more things in place to give more fake safety. face it people we are not safe and we need jobs. we should hire more rent a cops. tons of them. no more jobless people and more fake safety. win win. till the next loco kills.

but na life is unfair. so lets just all sit on our hands and wait to be killed?

^^^see statements like this are why i am speaking up to nite.

Yup. But I'm sure some piles of money will make them feel much better.

its the american way. i blame jearsy shore

however if that door is alarmed and someone opens it the whole of the patrons would know something was up. What would the outcome have been had an alarm sounded when Holmes left through that door? The people inside would have left through that same door into a well lit parking lot and police and fire would have been there in minutes. What would the outcome have been?

joy: Since the gunman walked outside and armed himself, chances are anybody else who walked out would have been shot right as they walked through that same door.

As for people noticing an alarm, how many times have you heard a car alarm and said "I wish someone would shut that off..." Chances are, if teh alrm went off, somebody would have gone and gotten an usher to shut the door and then there would have been 1 more casualty

It doesn't have to be a noisy alarm--a silent alarm to alert a security guard would be all that's needed. And it wouldn't need to be someone tied to a desk, either; a signal, sent remotely to a buzzer on their belt, would be just as effective. In this case, a single, wandering security person could have gone and check for a disturbance, and then either closed the door before James walked back in or at least have been the first line of defense against the intruder.

I'm still baffled by this... and I hate to use the word, but it applies... "sheeple" incident. Two hundred people, and not ONE person rushed the guy? Nobody tried to fight for their lives--they just let him keep on firing? Nobody stepped up to do anything against him, they just ran, knowing full well that he was going to keep shooting at them? I can understand those trapped between seats, not having anywhere to go but to fall to the floor, but those right near him ran, too.

Are you guys still on this single shooter thing? This guy was so hypnotized it's ridiculous! His father just happened to have dirt on our government, and his kid of course is able to come up with $20k worth of weapons armor and boobie traps, then of course tells people that his home is trapped. Have any of you tried looking at anything any further than what media tells you? Take a mass media class my goodness. Propaganda and spin is all you will ever read without going to outside sources. Still believe what you were told about Slavery, WWI, WWII, Waco, Oklahoma, 911? (many another unmentioned for sake of time)

of course, he would have been so scared of that walkie talkie he would have thrown his weapons down and started crying

Yes, and the theater, too...for not providing clear access for you to make your way to their venue.

And hollywood would be out of business? What a shame(insert sarcasim). Most Americans are just plain eager to part with their money and give it to the millionaires of hollywood. DVD's are a better bargain.

Who do you think makes the movies you buy on DVD?

Hollywood makes the money off the movie regardless of how it is distributed to the public. But at least if you watch the movies at home you can pause if you need to get up for food, restroom, cig break etc.. and not miss anything!!! Probably safer at home too!

I bet a much higher percentage of people die in their own homes, vs movie theaters....

Dvds are much better because you cause pause on the nudie bits

That is pathetic. Why don't they just go after the gunman for his money? This is like suing a bank that got robbed after the gunman shoots you for not getting on the floor. Obviously my point was that it would not be the bank's fault that the person got shot. It's sad that this has happened to these people and they want compensation for the traumatic event that took place, but they are targeting the wrong one. I mean yes this wouldn't have happened if there was more security (detectors), but it's a rarity a shooting happens in a theater which is why there's no security.