Judge tosses suit against theater chain over Colorado cinema massacre

[phill4paul]

A federal judge on Friday dismissed lawsuits filed against the owners of a Colorado theater where 12 people were killed and 70 wounded during a screening of a Batman film in 2012, court records showed.

Relatives of some of the dead victims and wounded survivors claimed in the lawsuit that theater chain Cinemark USA was negligent by not providing adequate security for its patrons.

U.S. District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson granted a motion filed by Cinemark to dismiss the case, who claimed in court that its employees could never have foreseen the actions of a "madman."

A state jury convicted gunman James Holmes, 27, of multiple counts of murder and attempted murder last year, and a judge sentenced him to consecutive life terms in prison after jurors spared him from the death penalty prosecutors sought.

Jackson said in Friday's ruling the victims could not prove the theater was the "proximate cause" of what he deemed a horrible tragedy.

The suit alleged Cinemark's lax security allowed Holmes to leave the theater during the movie, prop open an exit door, arm himself and re-enter the auditorium to carry out the mass shooting.

"Even if such omissions contributed in some way to the injuries and deaths, the Court finds that Holmes' premeditated and intentional actions were the predominant cause of plaintiffs' losses," Jackson wrote.

The decision comes a month after a jury in state court ruled in a similar lawsuit that Cinemark was not liable for the massacre. Friday's ruling effectively ends litigation against the chain over the shooting rampage.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-tos...--finance.html

[Ronin Truth]

Ah, the check must have cleared.

[angelatc]

U.S. District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson granted a motion filed by Cinemark to dismiss the case, who claimed in court that its employees could never have foreseen the actions of a "madman."

I hope it sticks. It isn't like the theater chain handed out guns, FFS.

[AZJoe]

Great picture. Truthful sign.

[Zippyjuan]

Maybe if we have armed guards in every building searching every patron and employee there will be no more tragedies? Will we still have liberties then? Well, we will still have Fort Hood. Or the Washington Navy Yard or Fort Brag or Quantico or Fairchild Air Force base in Washington. Weren't those gun free zones? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...story/7225403/

What about the millions of "gun free zones" which have never had a mass shooting?

There is no evidence that any shooters chose their location based on "gun free" zones.

[phill4paul]

Maybe if we have armed guards in every building searching every patron and employee there will be no more tragedies? Will we still have liberties then? Well, we will still have Fort Hood. Or the Washington Navy Yard or Fort Brag or Quantico or Fairchild Air Force base in Washington. Weren't those gun free zones? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...story/7225403/

What about the millions of "gun free zones" which have never had a mass shooting?

There is no evidence that any shooters chose their location based on "gun free" zones.

No. But there is overwhelming evidence that most, and the most successful, mass shootings occur in gun-free zones.

[Zippyjuan]

Which does not say that without gun free zones there would be no successful shootings. Note the ones I listed which took place on military bases. Locations were chosen by where the shooter felt they had a grievance, not by if it was "gun free" or not. They were all public gathering spaces. Perhaps we should ban all public gathering places.

Would the Columbine shooters have chosen a different school if theirs was not "gun free" and another was? No- it was their school.

If we want to take your argument in a different direction- maybe fewer would have died if they only had access to single fire weapons. Maybe restrict gun purchases to no more than a six shooter. Then they cannot kill as many people. Give police more time to get there before more die if he has to reload more often.

[phill4paul]

Which does not say that without gun free zones there would be no successful shootings. Note the ones I listed which took place on military bases. Locations were chosen by where the shooter felt they had a grievance, not by if it was "gun free" or not. They were all public gathering spaces. Perhaps we should ban all public gathering places.

Would the Columbine shooters have chosen a different school if theirs was not "gun free" and another was? No- it was their school.

Does not matter why they choose gun free zones. Only that a shooting became a mass shooting because of it. Yes, they happened at public gathering spaces. This is because these murderers want a target rich environment so that they may cause the most damage and thus gain noteriety. It doesn't help that these public gathering spaces are gun free zones. Including military bases. Perhaps we should allow individuals to assemble however they chose and allow them to do so armed and responsible for their own safety?

[Zippyjuan]

If the goal is to reduce such events, it does matter if they chose a place because it was a gun free zone. If that was not on their list of reasons for choosing their site, then getting rid of gun free zones will not prevent anything from happening. Since there is no evidence it was part of any decision process, blaming gun free zones is useless and irrelevant.

If they want noteriety and fame and want to go out in a "blaze of glory" do they care if they might die because there might be somebody armed there? Again, in most cases, it seems that death was either something they wanted or ignored. They didn't do it because they thought they would get away with it.

[phill4paul]

If the goal is to reduce such events, it does matter if they chose a place because it was a gun free zone. If that was not on their list of reasons for choosing their site, then getting rid of gun free zones will not prevent anything from happening. Since there is no evidence it was part of any decision process, blaming gun free zones is useless and irrelevant.

If they want noteriety and fame and want to go out in a "blaze of glory" do they care if they might die because there might be somebody armed there? Again, in most cases, it seems that death was either something they wanted or ignored. They didn't do it because they thought they would get away with it.

No, it does not. I have already stated that it does not matter how or why or even if they chose a certain location. The fact remains that mass shootings are carried out in this environment. An environment where the prey is disarmed and unable to defend themselves. Had the victims been able to defend themselves then it would not be called a mass shooting it would simply be called a shooting. And thus they would not gain notoriety. It would be a small blurb in a local region and not a national headline or topic.

"A man opened fire at a public gathering killing one and injuring three before he was stopped by an armed citizen."

vs.

"Orlando shooting: 49 killed, shooter pledged ISIS allegiance"

[Zippyjuan]

I have already stated that it does not matter how or why or even if they chose a certain location

Which supports my claim that Gun Free does not matter. Again, shootings have occurred on military bases where there are tons of armed people around. Fort Hood and the Navy Shipyard are two of the twelve deadliest shootings. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...in-u-s-history

[phill4paul]

Which supports my claim that Gun Free does not matter. Again, shootings have occurred on military bases where there are tons of armed people around.

Gun Free does matter. It is the difference between a MASS shooting and just a shooting. What part of that is so hard to understand? And it just goes to show that you know jack-$#@!. Have you ever served in the military? There are not "tons" of armed people around.

[AZJoe]

Which supports my claim that Gun Free does not matter. Again, shootings have occurred on military bases where there are tons of armed people around. Fort Hood and the Navy Shipyard are two of the twelve deadliest shootings. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...in-u-s-history

Both of those locations were "gun free" zones. On both the Navy Yard and Ft. Hood, military personnel and civilians were prohibited from carrying guns except for on certain on duty guards or MPs. Same as other gun free zones.

[AZJoe]

Gun Free does matter. It is the difference between a MASS shooting and just a shooting. What part of that is so hard to understand?

Exactly! Whether they actively chose it or not is irrelevant. The fact that it is a gun free zone enables a crime to become a MASS murder.

[Suzanimal]

Cinemark Wants Colorado Theater Shooting Victims To Pay $700K In Fees

Over a month after a state jury declared the nation’s third-largest exhibition chain was not responsible for the fatal Colorado theater shooting at the Aurora Century 16 multiplex, Cinemark wants the victims to pay up.

With paperwork filed last week, the chain is seeking $699,187.13 in legal fees and other costs from the nearly 30 plaintiffs in the consolidated action. Those plaintiffs are victims and surviving family members of those killed in the July 20, 2012 shooting at the Aurora theater during a screening of The Dark Night Rises.

...

As is true in many jurisdictions across the nation, state law in Colorado allows the winning side in a civil case to seek costs. After years of legal battling, Cinemark won the state case on May 19 when the 6-person jury delivered a unanimous verdict that the chain was not partially liable for the massacre that killed 12 and left 70 injured.

Cinemark did not respond to request for comment today on its latest legal moves in regards to the tragedy. Plaintiffs’ lawyer Marc Bern said last month that there likely would be an appeal of the verdict. Which means, this fees-and-costs filing could be a heavy-handed ploy by the chain in an attempt to halt any such appeal in return for dropping its own financial action.

..

http://deadline.com/2016/06/cinemark...es-1201781674/