|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Reports of shooting at Batman Premier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Cox
Film God
Posts: 2234
From: Melville Saskatchewan Canada
Registered: Apr 2011
|
posted 09-22-2012 12:07 PM
First lawsuits filed against theatre in 'Dark Knight' shooting
quote:
DENVER - Three Colorado moviegoers who were wounded when a gunman opened fire at a July screening of “The Dark Knight Rises” on Friday sued the owner of the theatre, Cinemark USA, accusing it of failing to provide adequate security, their lawyers said.
The action marks the first known civil lawsuits filed over the July 20 shootings at a suburban Denver screening of the Batman movie that killed 12 people and wounded 58 others.
James Holmes, a 24-year-old former neuroscience graduate student at the University of Colorado, has been charged with murder and attempted murder in the case.
“Readily available security procedures, security equipment and security personnel would likely have prevented or deterred the gunman from accomplishing his planned assault on the theatre’s patrons,” the law firm of Keating, Wagner, Polidori and Free said in a written statement.
Representatives of Cinemark could not immediately be reached for comment.
On the day of the shooting, prosecutors allege Holmes bought a ticket to the movie, left the theatre through an exit door, propping it open on his way out. He then returned to the theatre clad in ballistic protective gear and armed with multiple weapons, opening fire on the crowd, prosecutors say.
Public defender Daniel King has said his client suffers from mental illness and sought help before the shootings.
In the lawsuit filed in Denver federal court, victims Joshua Nowlan, Denise Traynom and Brandon Axelrod claim the theatre chain was aware of previous criminal activity at or near the cinema including “assaults and robberies” and at least one other shooting involving gang members.
“Although the theatre was showing a midnight premiere of the movie and was expecting large crowds of people to attend the midnight showing, no security personnel were present for that showing,” the lawsuit said.
Nowlan suffered disabling injuries to his left leg and his right arm, which was nearly severed from the gunshots, the lawsuit said. Traynom was shot in the buttocks and Axelrod was shot in the right knee and ankle.
The lawsuit also states “there was no action taken by theatre employees to safely evacuate the many people” in the theatre once the shooting spree got underway.
The judge presiding over the criminal case ruled on Friday that some documents in the court file can be publicly released, but arrest and search warrants that detail the specifics of the crime will remain sealed because of the ongoing investigation.
Also on Friday, Aurora Mayor Steve Hogan said that Cinemark sometime next year will reopen the theatre, which has been closed since the shooting.
“The theatre has been a valued part of our community for many years,” Hogan said in a statement. “I am confident Cinemark will continue to remain sensitive to victims, their families, their employees and our community throughout their process of remodelling and reopening.”
The parts that I find interesting are: “Readily available security procedures, security equipment and security personnel would likely have prevented or deterred the gunman from accomplishing his planned assault on the theatre’s patrons,” and “Although the theatre was showing a midnight premiere of the movie and was expecting large crowds of people to attend the midnight showing, no security personnel were present for that showing”.
I guess we're supposed to have airport-style checkpoints and security guards at all entrances and exits now....
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 09-22-2012 03:40 PM
quote: Randy Stankey
To be honest, it looks like a slam dunk for the plaintiffs to me.
I was thinking exactly the opposite. In fact, I'm betting on a dismissal.
It's very rare that courts break balls over random and utterly unforeseen acts like this. To recover anything from Cinemark, the plaintiffs would have to demonstrate that the theatre staff should have foreseen precisely this incident, to the point of being tipped off in advance that the guy was on his way over, and then sat on their hands and did nothing. Either that, or they will have to show a repeating pattern of violence at this place, such as constant fights in the lobby and in the parking lot and such that would have demonstrated that the theatre was a magnet for this kind of problem and required everyday security.
To draw a comparison to another mass murder: in 1987, a guy walked into a McDonalds in San Ysidro, California and opened fire, killing 21. McDonalds was sued by the victims families, but the case was summarily dismissed, then dismissed again on appeal. The ruling was that no business has the duty to protect its patrons from a sudden and random act of violence like this unless it knows for a fact that it is about to occur. McDonalds paid nothing.
Really, the only reason people are suing Cinemark is that they are the only people with any money in the case. There're not going to get anything out of the idiot himself. I would't be surprised if they go after WB, and then the property owners.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 09-22-2012 03:55 PM
I agree with your assessments but I would also say that, precisely the events you cite, the shooting at McDonald's in 1987 and the several highly publicized shootings in the recent past, constitute notice. Couple that with the fact that the theater has had security in the past, it could be said that they knew that people could cause trouble. Because they have had security in the past, it is clear that they knew or should have known that there could be problems.
The scope and severity of any past problems doesn't matter. That they had problems in the past and that they needed security officers to deal with them shows that they knew there was a potential for trouble which they ignored to the detriment of their customers.
Thinking about what you said, maybe it isn't such a slam dunk. ![[Shrug]](graemlins/shrug.gif)
However, I will stand on what I said above. The article above, released by the plaintiff's representatives, no doubt, is merely positioning and laying out their case to establish the five pillars of their claim: Notice, duty to act, failure to act and harm as a result of that failure.
I think, if the case fails, it will fail on the fourth pillar. As you have alluded to, it will be hard to prove that the harm came as a RESULT of Cinemark's failure to act.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 18 pages: 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16 17 18
|
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
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic