Judge rules Aurora theater shooting was foreseeable

[bedlamite]

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26346801/federal-judge-rules-aurora-theater-shooting-was-foreseeable

That's just wonderful. If the theater is liable I can see this leading to TSA type security at theaters, malls, restaurants, etc ...

[Boomhauer]

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26346801/federal-judge-rules-aurora-theater-shooting-was-foreseeable

That's just wonderful. If the theater is liable I can see this leading to TSA type security at theaters, malls, restaurants, etc ...

What. The. *expletive deleted*.

Is she partaking of Colorado's new cash crop?

Also, the flood of bullshit made my computer run really slow when I opened that site...

[HankB]

Refresh my memory here . . .

IIRC, shortly after the shooting, there were stories that the theater was one of the few local theaters that had signs posted making it a victim disarmament zone, in a state that issues carry permits . . .

If so (note I said "if") it would seem there is an element of "foreseeability" in play by the very public prohibition of concealed carry by people licensed by the state to do so.

[Regolith]

Also, the flood of bullshit made my computer run really slow when I opened that site...

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/noscript/

[sumpnz]

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26346801/federal-judge-rules-aurora-theater-shooting-was-foreseeable

That's just wonderful. If the theater is liable I can see this leading to TSA type security at theaters, malls, restaurants, etc ...

Many would just close.

[AmbulanceDriver]

Holy hell....    The stupidity of this ruling just....   

I'ma go lie down for a bit now.  I have a headache.......

[Fly320s]

By that logic, everything is foreseeable.  When will the movie chain install meteor-proof roofs? Think of the children!!

[cordex]

My initial reaction to this was the same as everyone else's, but thinking about it a little, this was just a hearing to determine whether or not the case would see trial, right?  Might there be legal requirements being satisfied by a broader interpretation of "foreseeable" as opposed to the more reasonable, common sense usage we are expecting?

[Phantom Warrior]

My initial reaction to this was the same as everyone else's, but thinking about it a little, this was just a hearing to determine whether or not the case would see trial, right?  Might there be legal requirements being satisfied by a broader interpretation of "foreseeable" as opposed to the more reasonable, common sense usage we are expecting?

This was a Motion for Summary Judgement.  The theater was making a motion that assuming all of the facts in the plaintiff's complaint were true there wasn't any legal basis for their suit.  I'm not sure I would have denied summary judgement here.  But this is a much higher standard than applied during trial proceedings.  The jury is the fact finder and can decide if the facts in the complaint are true or not.  And they can still decide the defendant (i.e. the theater) wasn't at fault.  We'll see what happens at trial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgement

[Balog]

Many would just close.

Jeff Bezos and Netflix are bribing judges to close down brick and mortar stores! Also, Jews and aliens. 

[Firethorn]

Refresh my memory here . . .

IIRC, shortly after the shooting, there were stories that the theater was one of the few local theaters that had signs posted making it a victim disarmament zone, in a state that issues carry permits . . .

If so (note I said "if") it would seem there is an element of "foreseeability" in play by the very public prohibition of concealed carry by people licensed by the state to do so.

I kind of like this logic.  Post(gun ban signs) all you like, just be aware that if you do so that you're responsible for the protection of your patrons to a higher degree than if you do not.

I bet such a ruling would have such signs coming down faster than scalded cats.

[T.O.M.]

This was a Motion for Summary Judgement.  The theater was making a motion that assuming all of the facts in the plaintiff's complaint were true there wasn't any legal basis for their suit.  I'm not sure I would have denied summary judgement here.  But this is a much higher standard than applied during trial proceedings.  The jury is the fact finder and can decide if the facts in the complaint are true or not.  And they can still decide the defendant (i.e. the theater) wasn't at fault.  We'll see what happens at trial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgement

Great description.  Most judges do not look favorably on an MSJ, because courts of appeals tend to slap judges for putting themselves in place of juries, and denying plaintiffs their right to have factual issues determined by a jury.

I think that the judge made a bad choice here in explaining it this way.  Could have just made a ruling that foreseeability is a question of fact best left to the jury, and called it done. 

With all of that said, I can imagine the world if foreseeability of something like this is found and upheld.  Insurance companies will insist that places like movie theaters, stores, even churches employ screening and security measures...maybe even TSA type screening and armed guards.  It will make CCW permits virtually useless, and even keep someone from carrying a pocket knife.  Bad idea...

[MechAg94]

Great description.  Most judges do not look favorably on an MSJ, because courts of appeals tend to slap judges for putting themselves in place of juries, and denying plaintiffs their right to have factual issues determined by a jury.

I think that the judge made a bad choice here in explaining it this way.  Could have just made a ruling that foreseeability is a question of fact best left to the jury, and called it done. 

With all of that said, I can imagine the world if foreseeability of something like this is found and upheld.  Insurance companies will insist that places like movie theaters, stores, even churches employ screening and security measures...maybe even TSA type screening and armed guards.  It will make CCW permits virtually useless, and even keep someone from carrying a pocket knife.  Bad idea...

If they did that, a whole lot more theatres would be going out of business.  I doubt I would put up with more it. 

[cordex]

If they did that, a whole lot more theatres would be going out of business.  I doubt I would put up with more it. 

Lots of people put up with that kind of security (or nearly - wands, bag searches, etc) for professional sports events.

I agree, though; my moviegoing days would be over as well if that happened.

[KD5NRH]

Lots of people put up with that kind of security (or nearly - wands, bag searches, etc) for professional sports events.

Last time I went to a Rangers game with a group, I recall thinking that only the barrel and tripod would have been a problem with sneaking in a crew-served machine gun taken down and tucked into various bags.  Rework one for short barrel, and make a mount clamp onto the rail, and you're all set.  Three coolers, all the women's purses and a huge diaper bag basically got glanced at and waved through.  No wanding at all.

[T.O.M.]

Last NHL game I attended, it was similar...lift up my sweater so they could see my waistline.  Period.  Last college football game I attended, they were more concerned about finding alcohol being smuggled in than anything else.  Looked through my binoculars to make sure they weren't one of the flasks. 

But, if there are a couple of judgments against these places, that would all change.  Either out of business as cordex suggested, or the whole nine yards.  May be a good time to invest in companies that sell metal detectors...

[fifth_column]

I kind of like this logic.  Post(gun ban signs) all you like, just be aware that if you do so that you're responsible for the protection of your patrons to a higher degree than if you do not.

I bet such a ruling would have such signs coming down faster than scalded cats.

There actually is legislation to this effect in Wisconsin.  As I understand it, part of the recent concealed carry bill makes it possible to hold a "no guns" business liable if a customer is injured during a holdup.  I don't think it's had a big impact on businesses decision regarding carry in their establishments.  Although, it's possible it has had a larger effect than I'm aware.

[Hawkmoon]

I kind of like this logic.  Post(gun ban signs) all you like, just be aware that if you do so that you're responsible for the protection of your patrons to a higher degree than if you do not.

I bet such a ruling would have such signs coming down faster than scalded cats.

Isn't that exactly what many of us have been saying should be the law regarding victim disarmament zones? Sure you have a right to prohibit guns in your store, but if you won't allow me the means to defend yourself then you become responsible for my protection?

Why is that a good thing in theory but when a judge actually tiptoes up to that line we're aghast?

[cordex]

Last time I went to a Rangers game with a group, I recall thinking that only the barrel and tripod would have been a problem with sneaking in a crew-served machine gun taken down and tucked into various bags.  Rework one for short barrel, and make a mount clamp onto the rail, and you're all set.  Three coolers, all the women's purses and a huge diaper bag basically got glanced at and waved through.  No wanding at all.

Not claiming the security checks are effective - people sneak stuff through TSA too - just saying they are in place to varying extents (and I have seen wanding at events I wasn't expecting to have it).  If you would be okay with ineffective security checks at the movies, more power to you. I wouldn't go.

[KD5NRH]

If you would be okay with ineffective security checks at the movies, more power to you. I wouldn't go.

I tend to treat security theater as a game; after a recon run, it's a challenge to see what can be snuck in.  Selfies with ridiculous contraband in an undeniably "inside the perimeter" setting are a bonus.

[cordex]

I tend to treat security theater as a game; after a recon run, it's a challenge to see what can be snuck in.  Selfies with ridiculous contraband in an undeniably "inside the perimeter" setting are a bonus.

So basically sneakily giving people who want to restrict your ability to carry a gun more money?  Way to stick it to the man!   

I've given away free NFL tickets to avoid that kind of crap, but if you're into playing games that the opposition wins either way then carry on ... so to speak.

[KD5NRH]

So basically sneakily giving people who want to restrict your ability to carry a gun more money?  Way to stick it to the man!   

Nah; I just plain avoid places that ban guns just to ban them.  (Professional sporting events are no-carry in TX anyway.)  More fun to sneak random prohibited crap into movies and such.

[cordex]

Nah; I just plain avoid places that ban guns just to ban them.  (Professional sporting events are no-carry in TX anyway.)  More fun to sneak random prohibited crap into movies and such.

You mean outside food and beverage or something?  Not sure how that fits in with the conversation here, but okay.

[KD5NRH]

You mean outside food and beverage or something?  Not sure how that fits in with the conversation here, but okay.

All depends on what you're sneaking.  The black bean and chipotle chicken chili I made last week would be better than CS if you could figure a way to disperse it properly, other than the usual method of waiting until it gets through the digestive tract.  It's definitely more effective than CS if you have time to wait for that.

[T.O.M.]

All depends on what you're sneaking.  The black bean and chipotle chicken chili I made last week would be better than CS if you could figure a way to disperse it properly, other th  an the usual method of waiting until it gets through the digestive tract.  It's definitely more effective than CS if you have time to wait for that.

 

Thanks.  Needed that after the day I've had.