|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Shooting Lawsuit Update
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 05-24-2016 11:11 AM
I believe that they changed Amsterdam recently, such that it now has one central security checkpoint, like most US airports.
I'm not surprised. During the decade or so in which I was doing 3-4 transatlantic trips a year, most of them involved changes at Amsterdam (because KLM had an almost monopoly on feeder flights from the UK regional airports to a long-haul hub, and so if you were starting a significant distance from London, KLM/Delta was pretty much your only choice). There were many times that flights were delayed by an hour or more simply because the security checks at the gate weren't processing people fast enough. Walking through the terminal, I also saw the stupid situation whereby the check for a long-haul, intercontinental A330 with 300 passengers was staffed by three people ... and the check for a Fokker 50 going 150 miles with 20 people also had three security checkers!
I haven't been through AMS since they did away with that system, but a couple of people who have tell me that it's vastly improved the place. It seems to me a better idea from an anti-terrorism perspective too: now you only have one queue of passengers to protect from a possible attack, not dozens of them.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 05-25-2016 04:53 PM
quote: Leo Enticknap
I believe that they changed Amsterdam recently, such that it now has one central security checkpoint, like most US airports.
Recently must be somewhere around 2002. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
But yes, Amsterdam now has central security checkpoints. The previous implementation was rather sloppy, because when you arrived early at a gate, there was no security personnel present at all and you could just walk into the waiting area at the gate. So, you could easily hide a weapon somewhere in the waiting room, like under a seat. But like any airport with direct flights to the U.S., they also needed to revamp their security... Still, like almost any other airport in the world, there is no security checkpoint to get into the arrivals and departure areas and the Plaza area, which is essentially a fully fledged shopping mall.
In Brussels, they're now checking cars on the roads connecting to the terminals and they've installed tents where they security check all passengers before they can enter the check-in areas. The airport is still running only on a fraction of the original capacity and it's already causing enormous delays, so it remains to be seen how sustainable those actions are as soon as they start to ramp the capacity up to normal levels.
The two airports in Israel I've been (Tel Aviv / Ben-Gurion and Eilat), did have security checks before check-in, but you were essentially inside the terminal building already.
quote: Randy Stankey
First, it serves to remind people that there is danger and that can make people feel less secure instead of feeling more secure.
You'd expect people would now slowly come to see what kind of theater all this so called security actually is. How much money has been put into the TSA for example? How much frustration and outright harm has it already caused? And how much terrorist attacks has it helped to prevent?
Terrorists will always be on the lookout for new weak targets, but unless you structure your society like North Korea, you cannot entirely prevent some lunatics finding a way to hurt innocent people. (And yeah, even North Korea seems to have issues controlling their own "terrorists" now and then.)
If I had to choose between a one in a gazillion chance of being shot at a movie theater or being groped by some masochistic TSA-style "security official" every time I'd go watch a movie, I'd chose the first option any given day of the week...
| IP: Logged
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 05-26-2016 03:38 AM
In the Post WW-II era, people were used to looking out for themselves but, now that most of those people have died off and the majority of the remainder of our population have never seen anything that resembles combat, they just don't have the ability to cope with that kind of anxiety.
I can understand that but the thing that confuses me is the way so many people, today, abdicate responsibility for their own safety and look for the government to do it for them.
I believe that the government does have a certain level of responsibility to protect its people but I also believe that nobody can protect the individual all of the time. There WILL come a time in almost everybody's life where they will have to look out for their own safety.
Sometimes, people need help and guidance to stay safe but, when it comes down to brass tacks, there is NOBODY who can look out for the individual's own best interests and safety than individuals, themselves.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 05-26-2016 10:00 AM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Recently must be somewhere around 2002.
The last time I transferred through AMS was in December 2013, and the x-ray checks at the gates were still in use then (at least, in the non-Schengen part of the airport: as I was in transit between the US and UK, I didn't enter the Schengen area). But at that time, there were posters up all over the terminal announcing the major refurb that was coming up. My understanding is that all the x-ray and other "gate rape" procedures were moved to a central checkpoint at the land/airside transition then.
quote: Randy Stankey
I can understand that but the thing that confuses me is the way so many people, today, abdicate responsibility for their own safety and look for the government to do it for them.
While at the same time complaining that the government is too large a presence in their lives, in many cases.
Growing up in 1980s London, when the Irish Republican Army's terror campaign was at its height, the risk of terrorism was at the back of our minds all along. The home of my local Member of Parliament was blown up by the IRA when I was 9, and my home was close enough to it that I heard the explosion. But the bottom line was that we all kept it at the back of our minds, not the front, got on with our lives, trusted the authorities to stop as many of the terrorist attempts as possible, but refused to be actually terrorized by the few that succeeded.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 05-29-2016 05:14 PM
quote: Randy Stankey
I believe that the government does have a certain level of responsibility to protect its people but I also believe that nobody can protect the individual all of the time. There WILL come a time in almost everybody's life where they will have to look out for their own safety.
I think the government's responsibility is to create and maintain an environment where people don't need to fear being shot on sight. The problem here is that much of this fear is being created by those same governments implementing all kinds of draconian "security measures", every time something goes wrong somewhere.
Also, every time something does happen, those same governments seem to take the opportunity to invent new laws and measures in name of "security". Many of those "security measures", weather premeditated or just by shortsightedness, only serve to take more freedom away from us.
In reality, we're not safer now from some random lunatic or terrorists running rampant for whatever reason than we were pre-9/11. Quite to the contrary, I'd say the risk of those kinds of events happening seems more present than ever before. So, whatever we've been doing for the last 15 or so years, isn't exactly working the way it's been advertised.
Still, the chance of dying from some random loon on a shooting frenzy or some terrorist attack is far far lower than the chance of you or me dying from a car accident, stroke, cancer or heart attack. Driving to your local theater is still the most dangerous part of your movie-going experience.
quote: Leo Enticknap
The last time I transferred through AMS was in December 2013, and the x-ray checks at the gates were still in use then (at least, in the non-Schengen part of the airport: as I was in transit between the US and UK, I didn't enter the Schengen area). But at that time, there were posters up all over the terminal announcing the major refurb that was coming up. My understanding is that all the x-ray and other "gate rape" procedures were moved to a central checkpoint at the land/airside transition then.
Interesting, it seems like they've been operating on some kind of hybrid mode for quite some years... I try to avoid AMS, I actually prefered BRU and still prefer DUS, for international flights, because they're both smaller. But if you're stuck with KLM in one way or another, there's little choice. In 2004, when I last flown with KLM to JFK there was an X-Ray check after passport control and one at the gate, the one after passport control wasn't there before. Everything was still on post-9/11 red alert then and this was given as an explanation, not very efficient. Last non-Shengen flight via AMS was last year in may to Kiev, there was just a single security check right after passport control.
I'm not sure how they handle transfers because I've actually never transferred at AMS, but the need for transfers to go trough security again is something which was established just a few years ago.
quote: Leo Enticknap
And I bet you that if Fatboy Kim is ever deposed and North Korea gets subsumed into the mainstream Asian economic sphere, it won't be long before you'll be able to buy DPRK memorabilia in every hippie souvenir store the world over.
If it ever happens, somewhere this century, they should try to keep Pyongyang the way it is, build a high fence around it and let Disney or Universal run it as a Stalinist theme park. Everyone suffering from some type of Ostalgie can spend their vacation in a North Korean "experience camp".
Ostalgie, like many manifestations of nostalgia comes in multiple flavors tough. A movie like Good bye Lenin! is a pretty sarcastic and funny take on the phenomenon itself. It's more problematic whenever people really mean it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan M. Crist
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 531
From: Hershey, PA, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
|
posted 07-01-2016 01:29 AM
Colorado is one of those jurisdictions which has "Loser Pays" - meaning that the loser of a lawsuit gets to pay the winning sides attorney fees.
Since the victims who were injured lost the lawsuit against Cinemark, the theatre chain is now seeking recovery of their $700,000 in legal fees against the victims.
CENTENNIAL, Colo. -- Attorneys for Cinemark want victims of a 2012 shooting at a Colorado movie theater to pay nearly $700,000 in legal fees after they unsuccessfully sued the theater chain.
The company's lawyers told a judge they need the money to cover the costs of preserving evidence, retrieving and copying records, travel and other expenses, according to court documents filed this month.
A judge didn't immediately rule on the request. But Colorado courts allow the winning side of a court case to recover legal fees.
Jurors in May ruled in Cinemark's favor over 28 victims and their families who argued the nation's third-largest theater chain should have done more to prevent the attack that killed 12 people and left more than 70 others injured. They sued in state court, saying security lapses allowed for the July 20, 2012 attack at a midnight premiere of a Batman film.
A judge last week dismissed a similar lawsuit in federal court, saying Cinemark's lack of security was not a substantial factor in the deaths.
In both lawsuits, victims cited a lack of guards and no alarm, including a silent alarm, on an emergency exit door that would have sounded when James Holmes slipped into the crowded theater and started shooting.
The company argued that no security measures would have predicted or stopped the armor-clad Holmes. After months of meticulous planning, he threw gas canisters into the crowd of more than 400 and then opened fire with a shotgun, assault rifle and semi-automatic pistol.
Cinemark Seeks Legal Fees From Victims
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-01-2016 11:11 AM
Cinemark wants the plaintiffs (shooting victims) to pay their $700,000 in legal fees? Does the company not realize just how shitty that would make them look to the general public? Do they not realize they could be dealing with a lot of negative publicity if they bankrupt these people? It could end up costing them a whole lot more than $700,000 in lost business.
quote: Justin Hamaker
The other issue is we see types of violence that didn't happen in the past. These mass shootings in public places like schools and movie theatres didn't happen in the past - Columbine was sort of the starting point. Prior to the 1990s, most mass shootings were domestic violence or related to other criminal activity.
Mass shootings were taking place prior to 1990. One notorious example: Charles Whitman shot 49 people, killing 16 of them, on the University of Texas campus in 1966. He killed 11 shooting from the observation deck of the UT tower. The difference back then: we didn't have 24 hour "news" networks selling fear and propaganda to the public. The Internet wasn't around to do the same thing either.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
In reality, we're not safer now from some random lunatic or terrorists running rampant for whatever reason than we were pre-9/11. Quite to the contrary, I'd say the risk of those kinds of events happening seems more present than ever before. So, whatever we've been doing for the last 15 or so years, isn't exactly working the way it's been advertised.
I rarely ever see anyone in the media report the statistical fact that the United States is a far safer country now than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Our homicide rate has been in a fairly steep decline since 1990. According to the FBI in 2014 the homicide rate was 4.5 per 100,000 people. In 1980 the rate was over 10 per 100,000. America's homicide rate wasn't this low since 1963.
The American public has been psychologically conditioned by the media to believe crime is worse now than it has ever been. I really feel bad for how it is affecting kids these days. When the parents are involved in the kids' lives they tend to be way the hell too involved. Constantly hovering out of fear. These kids get raised with zero sense of independence. It kills their motivation and self-reliance. Of course there's still the other extreme of absentee parenting, common to parents who aren't grown ups, just fuck ups more interested in their own pleasures than being involved with any parental work.
I grew up in the 1970's and 1980's when America was a far more dangerous place. But it didn't seem that way because the news and Internet wasn't on all day and all night programming everyone to be scared. My parents didn't constantly hover over me and my brother. They weren't there at every baseball practice, football practice, Boy Scout meeting or anything else we were doing after school or on the weekends. They were there for the important stuff. But they also trusted us to do our own thing independently. We managed to not get abducted and killed by child molesters or hooked on drugs by hippies or dark skinned people.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Also, every time something does happen, those same governments seem to take the opportunity to invent new laws and measures in name of "security". Many of those "security measures", weather premeditated or just by shortsightedness, only serve to take more freedom away from us.
I think a bunch of it is all about business and very little about making the country safer. Take prisons. That's a huge and growing industry in the United States. There's a lot of people investing huge amounts of money into for-profit prisons. It costs a lot of taxpayer money to keep over 2 million people incarcerated.
There's also a big business in financing court fines, be it from serious crimes or even traffic tickets. States, counties and cities often turn over that business to private companies who run things like a pay day loans operation with very high interest. Failure to pay puts some people back in prison. That improves the gray bar hotel occupancy rate and the bottom line for those prison investors. Some people end up in a financial downward spiral and even jobless and homeless just from trying to finance a speeding ticket.
The macho thing to say would be, "screw those people, they should not have committed the crime in the first place." It's nothing for a guy like me to pay a speeding ticket. I can afford it, even though a couple hundred bucks or so would hurt. Getting to the overall point, when a system makes people desperate they might resort to crime to pay the bills. And that's going create more crime victims.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic