# More proof that Slippy is right



## Auntie (Oct 4, 2014)

The world has done gone crazy.

Cinemark Bills Aurora Shooting Victims for $700,000 - Beaumont Enterprise


> The owners of the Aurora, Colorado, theater where 12 moviegoers were killed in a shooting in 2012 want nearly $700,000 from survivors and families of the victims.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Wait wait wait. From what I read the judge warned them to settle with Cinemark because he had seen a similar case that was lost AND told them he would most likely rule that way too. But they decided to spin the wheel and they lost. They got greedy. Besides, I agree with the judge there was no reasonable way for the theater to know the shooting would happen. 

This is also a slippery slope because if they had won it would set precedent for people to sue businesses if so wacko decides to shoot the place up. It wasn't the businesses fault or the guns fault or the ammo fault. It was the fault of the lunatic.

Sent from a Galaxy S5 far far away.


----------



## baldman (Apr 5, 2016)

Excuse my language, what a crock of shit! From victims and their families, someone should stomp on his head to try to fix it. I can't believe it.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

baldman said:


> Excuse my language, what a crock of shit! From victims and their families, someone should stomp on his head to try to fix it. I can't believe it.


I gotta ask, how is it the theaters fault a crazy kid decided to take out his daddy issues on a bunch of innocents?

Are we now going to have to have metal detectors in theaters? Maybe grocery stores, churches, 7-11 too?

Sent from a Galaxy S5 far far away.


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

I realize the OP is quoting lame stream media but the OP shouldn't carry forward an incomplete message. They are being billed for legal fees and court costs associated with the case they brought and LOST as they should have lost and now should pay.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

The families were tempted by that jackpot. They lost. They knew they'd have to cover all the legal costs if they lost, at least they should have known. 

I've always said: stay away from lawyers.


----------



## Auntie (Oct 4, 2014)

stowlin said:


> I realize the OP is quoting lame stream media but the OP shouldn't carry forward an incomplete message. They are being billed for legal fees and court costs associated with the case they brought and LOST as they should have lost and now should pay.


I posted it because I thought the whole issue was worth a discussion. I did not state my opinion either way.

Gee I can't win, I get complaints for quoting to much and for not quoting enough. *sigh*


----------



## baldman (Apr 5, 2016)

Sasquatch I might of misspoken I was under the impression that the theater was trying to get money from victims and their families. I posted at the same time you did and didn't get to read yours till after I flew off the handle. It seems like I was wrong.I apologize.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

baldman said:


> Sasquatch I might of misspoken I was under the impression that the theater was trying to get money from victims and their families. I posted at the same time you did and didn't get to read yours till after I flew off the handle. It seems like I was wrong.I apologize.


No need to apologize as long as you remember I am ALWAYS right!. But seriously, no need to apologize.

Sent from a Galaxy S5 far far away.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

My Thoughts

#1 - how the bloody hell is the theater responsible

#2 - This is america, if you file a stupid lawsuit and lose the victim (in this case the movie theater) is allowed to seek damages to cover the cost of defending a stupid law suit

#3 - This was a stupid law suit. 

Frankly, I am glad that the movie theater is suing them.


----------



## ND_ponyexpress_ (Mar 20, 2016)

no different than the Sandy Hook parent's having to pay legal fees.. it is a deterrent for frivolous lawsuits..


----------



## baldman (Apr 5, 2016)

Thank you sir.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Shyster lawyers convinced the families there was money at the end of the rainbow and they lost, rightly so. Is your family going to sue the bat company that made the bat I used to beat the snot out of you? Money grubbing whores. Lawyers should be dumped in the same shark infested waters as the Muslims.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Maine-Marine said:


> My Thoughts
> 
> #1 - how the bloody hell is the theater responsible
> 
> ...


 Can I just quote him and save the typing?


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Law Schools are cheap to start and fund. The tuition is very profitable. We turn out way more than needed so we see a lot of frivolous cases trying for the jackpot. Desperation.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

This is another reason I love the new law in Tennessee where businesses are liable should they not allow patrons to carry and a patron whom has a permit and usually carries is injured.

'Gun Free' Zone Tennessee Business Liable for Disarming Concealed Carry Holders | Truth Revolt



> Present law authorizes persons in control of property to post a notice that prohibits firearms on the premises. This bill imposes a duty of care on any person who posts their property to prohibit firearms whereby such person will be responsible for the safety of any handgun carry permit holder while the permit holder is on the posted premises and traversing any area to and from the premises and the location where the permit holder's firearm is stored. The duty of care created by this bill will extend to the conduct of other invitees, trespassers, employees of the person or entity, vicious animals, wild animals, and defensible man-made and natural hazards.


I'm sure that theater was a "gun free zone" with signage up everywhere and at least one conceal carry patron was injured. While it wasn't Colorado law at the time I think this Tennessee law should be a nation wide thing.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

Auntie said:


> I posted it because I thought the whole issue was worth a discussion. I did not state my opinion either way.
> 
> Gee I can't win, I get complaints for quoting to much and for not quoting enough. *sigh*


Psst Auntie, no worries and know that Stowlin cant help himself. (He's a San Francisconian, need I say more?)


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

I hope the theater gets their money for being dragged through the mud and having to defend themselves. Greed lost in this one.


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

Auntie said:


> I posted it because I thought the whole issue was worth a discussion. I did not state my opinion either way.
> 
> Gee I can't win, I get complaints for quoting to much and for not quoting enough. *sigh*


Well who ever complained about quoting too much is silly. To me anyway.
By the way here's your second post and still no opinion? Quoting the lame stream
medias opinion without your own could cause some to believe you support the lame
stream medias point of view - as I'm sure some do.


----------



## preponadime (Jun 15, 2016)

The way I read it was they had a chance to settle with the theater they pushed it they lost pay the piper case closed


----------



## Targetshooter (Dec 4, 2015)

Slippy may be right on one way , the right way of thinking .


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

Targetshooter said:


> Slippy may be right on one way , the right way of thinking .


^^^^^^ Help me out here Brother? Can ya translate into good ole' boy speak?


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

A business is held to an unrealistic expectation of security. Ultimately the cost is passed onto the consumer.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

And one other thing....

I do not like GUN FREE ZONES, however businesses have a right to allow or not allow guns... By going there you agree to their terms.


----------



## Auntie (Oct 4, 2014)

stowlin said:


> Well who ever complained about quoting too much is silly. To me anyway.
> By the way here's your second post and still no opinion? Quoting the lame stream
> medias opinion without your own could cause some to believe you support the lame
> stream medias point of view - as I'm sure some do.


I posted it the way I did for a few reasons. I wanted to see who would actually read the article. I also wanted to get an idea of where some people stand on a subject like this. I already know where some people stand. I usually post from CNN and let others post from another source. After all aren't we hear to share information? Some times you can learn another point of view by keeping your own opinion to yourself and listening or in this case reading.

Now for my opinion.

I understand that the families were upset about the theater not having an alarm on the emergency exit. Most places do, look around next time you are out. In my opinion the theater should not have been sued, they did not do anything egregious. Would the outcome have been different if there was an alarm, probably not. They were told in advance that if they lost they would have to pay the legal fees, they chose to continue.

The lawsuit is another example of always blaming someone else. The person aiming the gun didn't kill the person, the gun did. Society needs to put the blame where it belongs and quit looking for a fast buck. Just for the record, 3 of the people killed were part of our inner circle of friends. My nephews played at their home many times.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Auntie said:


> The lawsuit is another example of always blaming someone else. The person aiming the gun didn't kill the person, the gun did. Society needs to put the blame where it belongs and quit looking for a fast buck. Just for the record, 3 of the people killed were part of our inner circle of friends. My nephews played at their home many times.


The real issue has been brewing for years. People have been taught that nothing is their fault. You can also sue for damages for anything. The light bulb moment for me was the lady that sued McDonald's because she spilled hot coffee on herself. Yup, that was McDonald's fault, they lost the law suit. It has grown from there. Someone trips on your doorstep, expect a lawsuit. My wife was backing out of a parking spot in a local shopping area. Someone's ankle biter decided to run from them and ran behind my wife's car. Small kid, you couldn't see him. She was barely moving and the kid wasn't hurt. But they sued and won. You can't control your kid so you sue. They got a decent chunk of change from the insurance company for that. Easy money.

Now we blame anyone or anything we can. Holmes had no money so they have to find compensation somewhere else. So blame the corporation. That failed so maybe next will be the gun manufacturers.

It won't be long before we sue the auto industry for death resulting from car accidents or alcohol brewers/distillers sued for deaths brought on from someone who had been drinking.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Thank you @Auntie for confirming what Mrs Slippy absolutely HATES to admit...That Slippy Be Right! HA

Anyway as a young person I learned some valuable lessons; After coloring on the wall with crayons and proudly showing my parents my artwork, I got my ass whipped and had to clean the wall...even though Mom and Dad bought the damn crayons and left the wall unattended, I still got whipped...

Later when I started mowing the lawn, I proudly showed Dad that a Lawnmower was no match for a curb...Again, an ass whipping ensued even though the city put that curb in so close to the grass and Dad gave me stern instructions to mow the entire lawn...I still got whipped...

Then when me and my buddy DLS took his brother's car over the state line and bought some 40 ouncers and flipped his brother's car on the way home...somehow it was our fault when the brewerey brewed that Malt Liquor, DLS's dumbass brother left his keys where we could get them, the State built a road that got us to and from the bar at the state line and the road that we returned on had a sharp curve, somehow it was our damn faults! (NO ass whipping that time just a short hospital stay...)

Anyway, I have no idea how this ties into anything other than YES, the world done gone crazy....:vs_no_no_no:


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Slippy said:


> Anyway, I have no idea how this ties into anything other than YES, the world done gone crazy....:vs_no_no_no:


That's the sad point. The world done gone crazy.

Just for fun, read some of the warning labels on many products. It can make you wonder how low we have sunk.

Dumb Warnings


----------



## Auntie (Oct 4, 2014)

inceptor said:


> That's the sad point. The world done gone crazy.
> 
> Just for fun, read some of the warning labels on many products. It can make you wonder how low we have sunk.
> 
> Dumb Warnings


Years ago I got a new chain saw and was reading the warnings. My favorite was "keep away from genitals, serious injury may result"


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Auntie said:


> Years ago I got a new chain saw and was reading the warnings. My favorite was "keep away from genitals, serious injury may result"


OUCH! You sure know how to make a guy cringe.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

Auntie said:


> My favorite was "keep away from genitals, serious injury may result"


^^^^^^^ Auntie's new tag line.


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

Auntie said:


> Years ago I got a new chain saw and was reading the warnings. My favorite was "keep away from genitals, serious injury may result"












He didn't read the warning.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Everyone gets a trophy mentality, everybody wins and no accountability. Is it any wonder this country is going to hell? Very sad.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Arklatex said:


> He didn't read the warning.


He's now talking 3 octaves higher.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

The ones that need to be sued and forced to pay up are the lawyers. The ones that are looking for a cash cow. Bring a law suit against the theater for someone else actions is as wrong as it gets. They were warned even by the judge it would not end well for them.


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

Was the theater negligent by not having the door locked ? If I remember correctly the shooter entered through an unlocked exit door from the OUTSIDE. 

Did the theater provide security ? Was it adequate ? 

Is the Judge that advised not to bring the case the final say ? Or are there appeals to be filed ? 

I know apartment complexes are sure to call their security officers " courtesy officers " because it implies the complex is providing " security " and that opens them up to liability.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^^^ Don't ya figure the Judge thought about these no brainer points, before he ruled against the greedy mourners?


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

A Watchman said:


> ^^^^^^ Don't ya figure the Judge thought about these no brainer points, before he ruled against the greedy mourners?


No, I don't. Often appeals are filed and a different judge makes the decision. So his opinion ultimately doesn't matter, it's just a formality.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Smitty901 said:


> The ones that need to be sued and forced to pay up are the lawyers. The ones that are looking for a cash cow. Bring a law suit against the theater for someone else actions is as wrong as it gets. They were warned even by the judge it would not end well for them.


But we need to make sure that lawyers get richer. Once they become wealthy then they become politicians. And we know how much good they are able to do then.

/sarc off.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Operator6 said:


> Was the theater negligent by not having the door locked ? If I remember correctly the shooter entered through an unlocked exit door from the OUTSIDE.
> 
> Did the theater provide security ? Was it adequate ?
> 
> ...


Since there is no law about keeping exterior doors lock...no they are not negligent!!!

Did the movie theater provide security... most likely a senior in high school armed with a flashlight... no law requires them to provide security

appeals can almost always be filed,,, however they will just lose again and again

providing security does not open anybody up to liability. if so...towns could be sued by a victim of a crime because the police were not there. The supreme court has ruled that police have no obligation to protect...

AND most security people are there to provide security for the owners property and people, not visitors


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

Maine-Marine said:


> Since there is no law about keeping exterior doors lock...no they are not negligent!!!
> 
> Did the movie theater provide security... most likely a senior in high school armed with a flashlight... no law requires them to provide security
> 
> ...


Sorry but you're misinformed. The law is not so simple. The plaintiffs my very well lose on appeal but maybe not, that's not for us to decide.
Here read this link.......
http://m.pe.com/articles/steward-679646-guard-dordick.html

That's about all I'll offer on this topic, you all can have the last words. Bye bye .


----------

