Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Shooting Lawsuit Update

This is topic Shooting Lawsuit Update in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=002984

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-19-2016, 03:09 PM:

Variety

quote:
Cinemark Not Liable in Colorado Theater Shooting, Jury Finds

Gene Maddaus
Senior Media Write
A civil jury has found that Cinemark was not liable in the 2012 mass shooting at its theater in Aurora, Colo., siding with attorneys for the theater chain who argued that the shooting was an unforeseeable tragedy.

Twelve people were killed and another 70 wounded when James Holmes opened fire on the crowd at a midnight screening of “The Dark Knight Rises” on July 20, 2012. Attorneys for 28 victims’ relatives and survivors filed suit in state court, alleging that Cinemark should have done more to prevent the massacre.

The attorneys claimed that Cinemark should have had armed guards, better surveillance cameras and alarms on its exit doors, according to the Denver Post. But Cinemark’s attorneys countered that the attack was “completely unpredictable, unforeseeable, unpreventable and unstoppable,” the Post reported.

Cinemark is the nation’s third-largest theater chain, with 338 theaters in 41 states. Had the lawsuit succeeded, it could have resulted in heightened security measures at theaters across the country. Cinemark’s lawyers emphasized that the odds of being killed in a mass shooting are extremely remote, with one expert putting it at one in 10 million.

The six jurors took less than a day to reach a unanimous verdict absolving the theater chain of liability.

Another trial on the same issue is set to begin in federal court in July.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 05-19-2016, 10:53 PM:

I feel like this was a good verdict. When you go out in public you have to expect there is some risk of bad things happening. Even if the theatre had had armed guards and alarms on the doors, it may not have prevented the attack.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 05-20-2016, 12:57 PM:

I still think they should have had some sort of sensors on the back exit doors, at the very least to stop people from sneaking their friends in. I saw this happen a lot of times at places I worked. If someone there had noticed the exit door opening during the movie, they'd at least know something was up before the shooting started, although they still might not have been able to completely stop it. I hope that theaters have at least started doing more to prevent the same thing from happening.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-20-2016, 01:15 PM:

Know one small circuit that did set up an alarm system where when an exit only door was opened, and audible alarm, and very loud as well, would go off in the lobby.

Alarm could be shut off by management team only.

Now, if the door was checked prior to turning off the alarm was another matter....

Do agree with the outcome that Cinemark isn't held accountable - just one of those things that happened.

Yet, I'm sure after all of this, that more theatre checks with adding exit doors checks have been implemented.

-Monte

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 05-20-2016, 02:55 PM:

I don't think a door alarm system would have done much to prevent this shooting. For one thing, the doors that exit to the outside are normal exit doors in most theatres. Many customers use them to exit the theatre after the show. Having an audible alarm in the auditorium means having to reset it multiple times throughout the day. And when someone exits to have a cigarette or talk on their phone, the alarm is going off during the show.

My company's theatres have these exit doors wired to the alarm system so they have to be closed to set the alarm at the end of the night. When they are opened they sound an alert near the box office. When this goes off during a show we send someone up to check the door and make sure no one is sneaking people in. When it goes off at exit time, we just reset it. If the theatre had had something like this, it would have simply sent another person into harms way. Since it is not unusual (not common, but far from rare) for these alarms to go off during the show, it doesn't create any sense of alarm among the staff.

About the only mistake the staff made was not checking that the door was secure prior to the showing. Had someone pushed on the door they likely would have noticed the latch was disabled. I now specifically train all my employees to do just that.

I think the one thing that might have made a difference is if the auditoriums had cameras located above the doors outside the building which triggered some sort of an alarm when motion was detected. But even this probably wouldn't have given any extra time to call 911 unless someone was right there monitoring the cameras - which is unlikely on a busy midnight opening.

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 05-20-2016, 04:16 PM:

We have a similar setup to Justin's. Alarm panel beeps right next to the usher when an auditorium door opens. If the movie is letting out, we just reset it. If the movie is running or about to start, if we have competent staff at the time, someone runs down there quickly to see what is happening. We have caught several sneakers that way, and have closed a couple of propped doors, but if there was a gunman... There's nothing to do

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 05-21-2016, 07:04 AM:

When this unfortuanate tragedy happened and I had heard that he had went in and out the exit door to retrieve his weapons - I realized that the people watching the movie were not the "get up and say something" type.

If I had been in the auditorium, and witnessed someone going out the emergency exit - my "theatre" instinct would have kicked in. I would have made my way down to see what was happening. Of course, my guess would have been he was sneaking other people in - or getting a pizza delivered (It's happened). So, I might have been the first person to get shot. But if he had propped the door open with something, I would be removing the item propping the door open, and going to find a manager. Which would have left him outside. There has been many times where I have been at another theatre watching a movie (not the one I worked at)and reported suspicous activity to the management. People letting others in the back door, kids sneaking in to "R" movies, and weirdos doing thier weird things they do. Truthfully, it's led me to court to testify a few times. But, as a theatre manager, I would hope others would do the same. I can't be everywhere in my building at all times.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 05-21-2016, 11:18 AM:

Extending this to the absurd: Had the jury agreed with the plaintiffs, I wonder if liability policies would require exit alarms pretty much everywhere else. One could extend the argument that alarms should be placed on exit doors at malls, schools, restaurants, sporting stadiums, even churches... pretty much any unsupervised back door that might give a "bad guy" access.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-21-2016, 04:37 PM:

In the case of the Cinemark shooting,

Alarms on the auditorium doors would have only told us that everybody in the theater was about to die.

Video cameras in the building would have only told us where to find the dead bodies.

Armed guards in the theater would have only resulted in MORE lead flying through the air in a crowded auditorium.

You can't say that an alarm would have allowed somebody to call the cops because the cops already came.

You can't say that cameras would have allowed police to identify the shooter because we already identified the shooter and he's already in jail.

You can't say that an armed guard would have stopped the shooter because he acted on a moment's notice in a dark, crowded room. Even an 24-hour, on-site SWAT Team wouldn't have stopped him.

Assuming that fate played out exactly the same way, if there were alarms, cameras and guards in the theater, people STILL would have died.

You can almost never stop a determined criminal acting on the spur of the moment.

No (reasonable) amount of security or technology would have stopped that shooting from playing out almost exactly the same way it did.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-21-2016, 11:10 PM:

Like Randy said.

Furthermore, not only was there no reasonable security precaution that could have prevented or even mitigated this tragedy, but if unreasonable ones had been in place, they would have destroyed Cinemark's business.

We put up with the TSA's "gate rape" because we have no practical other choice if we want to travel more than a few hundred miles (although a friend of mine objects to it so strongly that she regularly travels between LA and Portland by rail, and reports that the trains have been getting fuller over the last couple of years). But we have lots of other choices as to how we spend our leisure time besides going to the movie theater, and if the movie theater experience becomes like going to an airport or a military base, then the business is finished.

When all is said and done, the theater is a public place, and everyone who goes there knows full well that, like in any other public place that doesn't search people for weapons on entry, they are taking the very small risk that they will find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 05-23-2016, 11:54 AM:

Good verdict, nothing could have prevented this, even if they checked the door and closed it he could have easily went into the lobby and started shooting as well. No one would have been able to stop him.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 05-23-2016, 05:34 PM:

quote:
When all is said and done, the theater is a public place,

Well... not really. In the 'States, it would be termed a "place of public accommodation". I have to remind people of that sometimes, when explaining that our place has rules and, so long as I enforce them fairly evenly, I get to make them. As a private property owner, should the need appear to present itself, I can even make them up as I go along. There are some caveats to that, but the "public" sometimes forgets that their $10 at the gate doesn't buy them a piece of the rock.

Lawyers know this, too... therefore the unfortunate drive to find someone responsible for pretty much anything you don't like these days.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-23-2016, 10:14 PM:

Any reasonable judge or jury can see this is unpreventable in the real world. Congrats to Cinemark. Sorry to the plaintiffs who have been through so much, but you just don't have a case.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-23-2016, 11:12 PM:

quote: Jack Ondracek
In the 'States, it would be termed a "place of public accommodation".

Sorry ... by "public place," I wasn't trying to suggest that the public have an absolute right to be there, only that the public are routinely admitted there, and that it's understood on both sides (by the business owner and his or her customers) that it's not viable for the business owner to provide airport-style security, and thus that the customer accepts the small risk of becoming a crime victim, just as he would on the public sidewalk.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 05-24-2016, 12:53 AM:

Brussels was a nice example of how well airport-style security works. It was most likely not the best example of airport security in the world, but then again, does anybody honestly believe a theater could ever provide better security?

You can take all the security precautions you want, but you usually only move the weak spot further down the line.

Security checks at theaters, theme parks, etc.? Once a big line has formed, you just created another weak target.

quote: Jack Ondracek
Extending this to the absurd: Had the jury agreed with the plaintiffs, I wonder if liability policies would require exit alarms pretty much everywhere else. One could extend the argument that alarms should be placed on exit doors at malls, schools, restaurants, sporting stadiums, even churches... pretty much any unsupervised back door that might give a "bad guy" access.

And extending it even more to the absurd:

quote: The earlier quoted Variety article

The attorneys claimed that Cinemark should have had armed guards, better surveillance cameras and alarms on its exit doors, according to the Denver Post.

So, essentially, if the jury would've agreed, then it would potentially require all those venues not only to have alarms on their exits, but also armed guards and CCTV which covers all nooks and crannies, including someone who actually supervises the CCTV.

It's obviously that no normal business can prepare for those kind of exceptional events. If you really want to go this route, where do you draw the line? Next up: meteorite-proofing your roof.

I guess it's better to put some more efforts in keeping those kind of exceptional events exceptional...

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-24-2016, 01:06 AM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Brussels was a nice example of how well airport-style security works.

They did what they wanted to do landside, without even attempting to go through the security checks. I've never been through an airport that does security checks for people entering the landside area (though I gather that a few, e.g. in Israel, do), and so I guess that the terrorists in this case knew that airport security is all about preventing bad guys from getting to the actual planes (hence it happens at the landside to airside transition), and doesn't try to control who gets to areas of the airport that are physically separated from them.

Agreed completely - the only way to address this and stay sane is to identify the people who are likely to do this sort of thing before they actually do it, and regulate them accordingly.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 05-24-2016, 08:58 AM:

Amsterdam, Dublin and, no doubt, other airports have the only security right at the gate. Doesn't make me feel any better until I am on the plane. Even I wondered how safe a large, concentrated, target area is.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 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.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-24-2016, 05:21 PM:

There are three problems with increasing security.

First, it serves to remind people that there is danger and that can make people feel less secure instead of feeling more secure.

Second, increased security tends to find crimes that previously would have gone unnoticed. Those crimes are usually petty, unimportant things. The result is to increase the apparent crime rate and that makes people feel even less secure.

Finally, increased detection of petty crimes can have the side effect of criminalizing behaviors that, previously, would have been innocuous. That tends to increase peoples' feeling of anxiety.

The result of all this can cause people to want more security and that can create a snowball effect.

None of this is a good thing to have in a movie theater! [Frown]

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 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]

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...

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 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.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 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.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 05-26-2016, 01:02 PM:

Randy, I think it's part of the bigger issue where people exist in their little bubble and expect the not be disturbed within it. I also think it's a side effect of how much security has clamped down in so many places since 9/11. You get accustomed to the security lines at airports, ball parks, and other public places. So when something bad happens at a place where that level of security is not present, you start to think 'they' are failing at protecting you.

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.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-26-2016, 03:16 PM:

What about Postal shootings?

The first recorded postal shooting I can find happened in 1926 in Australia. Postal shootings in the U.S. have been happening since, at least, 1975.

Don't forget George Metesky, the Mad Bomber of New York City. He planted bombs for 16 years before the cops caught him in 1957.

David Berkowitz? AKA: The Son of Sam? The Year? 1976.

Charles Manson? 1969.

Lee Harvey Oswold? 1963.

Ricky Kasso? 1984. (This is the one where they blamed Heavy Metal music to be a "Satanic Influence." Remember?)

Yes, yes... Some of these killings were serial-type killings. Some were mass-type killings. Others were single killings.

My point is that, No... There hasn't been a rash of killings that started in Columbine, whether they be singles or multiple killings.

People have been killing people since people were created and there is nothing that's going to stop it.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-29-2016, 01:44 AM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
So when something bad happens at a place where that level of security is not present, you start to think 'they' are failing at protecting you.

You also run into that syndrome when a totalitarian regime falls and is replaced by one with "small government" (in comparison): that process is the "something bad". After the Berlin Wall fell, the term Ostalgie emerged, to describe people who positively didn't want the political freedom that came with joining the west, yearned for the comfort blanket of not having to think for themselves, and regarded the lower material standard of living as an acceptable price to pay for it. Also in Germany, the 1990s movie Schtonk! satirized an underground cult of ex-Nazis who felt the same way about their long-gone system of government.

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.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 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.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 05-29-2016, 07:47 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
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.

I know this is very close to veering into politics, so I'll watch my words. I agree with this comment. The problem is those new laws are often just to give people the illusion something is being done. Very rarely to they address the root issue in an substantive way.

Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 05-29-2016, 08:09 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.

That's a very American view. In many first world countries, the populace would never even dream of having to look after their own safety, much less having to think about it in advance and be equipped to undertake such a thing.

Fortunately, the time when bad things ghappen to everyday folks going about their daily toil are, in most places, quite few and far between.

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 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

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-01-2016, 01:57 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
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.

They're not stupid (presumably), and they must understand that doing this will unleash a sh!t storm of negative publicity. The only two rational explanations I can think or are (a) Cinemark is not in a good financial position and they actually need that $700k to remain a stable business, and/or (b) they want to send a message to anyone else who might be thinking about taking them to court, and believe that this is more important than the short-term negative publicity.

It's a difficult one. On the one hand, this lawsuit clearly shouldn't have happened (IMHO), because there was never any serious evidence on the table that Cinemark had the duty of care to the victims that the plaintiffs claimed that they did, and that they failed to discharge. Also IMHO, it raises the question of why any responsible attorney would take the case on.

As for minor traffic violation fines, this is a huge issue in CA, where speeding fines can be in the high three figures. There is an almost universal belief that they have almost nothing to do with road safety, and an awful lot to do with revenue-raising. Fines for freeway speeding in particular completely undermine the rule of law. When I first moved here I was scrupulously careful to obey all speed limits: as a recent immigrant, I was warned by the attorney who handled my green card application that any brush with the law whatsoever could endanger my permanent resident status.

However, try obeying the 65mph limit on an uncongested (which admittedly, doesn't happen very often) SoCal freeway, and you'll be a danger to yourself and everyone around you. Even the big rigs will be tailgating you and honking at you. So in those circumstances I usually cruise at around 70-75, and even then most other vehicles are passing me. Any passing CHP cruiser could simply pick off any vehicle they choose and slap them with a $500 ticket, and I'm sure they have daily quotas that are set to deliver a healthy profit for the state. IMHO, the limit needs to be raised to a level that a majority of the public would support as being sensible, and thereafter enforced with zero tolerance (e.g. by speed cameras). As things are, drivers are effectively forced to break the law, and roll the dice on every journey they make as to whether they'll get away with it.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 07-01-2016, 02:48 PM:

I promise you, the Cinemark suit is a legal maneuver to bring the case to a final conclusion. Once the familiy's attorney promises not to file an appeal or file any further actions against them, the Cinemark compensation suit will be quietly dropped.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-01-2016, 03:28 PM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
It's a difficult one. On the one hand, this lawsuit clearly shouldn't have happened (IMHO), because there was never any serious evidence on the table that Cinemark had the duty of care to the victims that the plaintiffs claimed that they did, and that they failed to discharge. Also IMHO, it raises the question of why any responsible attorney would take the case on.

The why of it is an easy one there: money. A huge movie theater chain looks like a fat, juicy target for any law firm looking for a big settlement. The firms involved get a lot of publicity from the press coverage. Even if they don't win the high profile case the publicity gains them a lot of other business anyway.

quote: Leo Enticknap
As for minor traffic violation fines, this is a huge issue in CA, where speeding fines can be in the high three figures. There is an almost universal belief that they have almost nothing to do with road safety, and an awful lot to do with revenue-raising.

There's a lot of that nationwide, everything from big city police departments to little one horse towns operating their own speed trap franchises. I agree with you about it being very difficult to drive at or below the speed limit in some big cities. It's crazy in Dallas. If the traffic isn't jammed everyone is doing 70mph or 80mph. I once got a ticket from a motorcycle cop in the Dallas suburb of Garland. People were blowing past me in my Camaro like I was standing still, but I got pulled to the side.

It's one thing for city governments to be raising revenue via speeding tickets. But I think the more sinister side is the financing angle of it. Middle class people usually can scrounge enough cash to pay off a ticket or other court fines all in one shot. Poor people can't do that so easily. So they have to get on a payment plan. Just getting on the plan costs a big fee. Then the company financing the fine charges loan shark interest on it. A $250 traffic ticket can balloon into thousands of dollars in no time at all. I've read about people losing their cars, jobs and getting evicted onto the street due to that crap. Some even wind up in prison. Supposedly debtors prisons are illegal in the United States, but this is happening anyway.

This stuff is doing nothing to help public safety or improve society. This arrangement in the criminal justice system is there to make some connected people a shit ton of money. We have a situation where a convicted felon released from prison and trying to straighten out his life can literally be forced back into committing crime just to try to pay off his high interest court fines. He's not going to get a good paying job anywhere since he's a felon, but he has bills to pay anyway. The situation undermines public safety. Plus, it makes even more of a mockery of the word "rehabilitate" the criminal justice system likes to use so much. The system only seems to deliver ever-lasting vengeance against the convict, not rehabilitation. Take away the convict's opportunities and hope for the future and it will be replaced with the motivation to commit more crime, victimize more people.

quote: Mark Ogden
I promise you, the Cinemark suit is a legal maneuver to bring the case to a final conclusion. Once the familiy's attorney promises not to file an appeal or file any further actions against them, the Cinemark compensation suit will be quietly dropped.

I hope you're right. Still, suing the victims/plaintiffs looks like a dick move in the press. Those families are probably out all kinds of money already on attorney fees. The shooting victims who survived are burdened with the price gouging costs of medical treatment. There's no doubt the thought has crossed some victims minds to break the shooter out of jail just to kill him.

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 07-01-2016, 04:13 PM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
it raises the question of why any responsible attorney would take the case on.

The operative word here is responsible. There is a huge hoard of ambulance chasers out there who salivate at such opportunity.

A friend once told me that lawyers are like guppy spawn except that the mother guppy eats the excess.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-01-2016, 04:14 PM:

Based on the information I've read, I actually strongly agree with Cinemark on this one. It was a dick move to sue the business, in this case. Yes it was an awful tragedy but Cinemark didn't do it and they should never have be sued in the first place. If anyone should PAY it is the lawyers of the plaintiffs that probably convinced their clients to sue the deepest pockets around...for FREE since it would be a contingency case. So all those lawyers were out was their time/materials...not too much risk there with a potential big payoff.

It took less than a day for a jury to come back 6-0 in favor of Cinemark. Nobody and no business should have to be subjected to that type of lawsuit. It probably borderlined on frivolous.

This is definitely a lose-lose case for Cinemark...they either throw away $700K or open themselves up to being sued again and again (and any other business) just because something very bad happened in their business that was not in their control. So what next? Sue the cops because they didn't preemptively stop the maniac? Unfortunately, the person that was REALLY responsible probably wasn't worth anything. I wonder if their attorneys told their clients that they COULD be on the hook for the legal fees if they lost. When you have nothing to lose, you are more apt to do something that you otherwise wouldn't. Now if they could amend the law so that the losing ATTORNEYS would have to pay...then people probably wouldn't feel so bad and a lot of ambulance chasers would go away.

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 07-01-2016, 11:27 PM:

One possibility I heard was the threat to sue for fees could be dropped if the plaintiff agrees not to appeal the existing decision.

Harold

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-02-2016, 12:13 AM:

The prospect of suing for costs being a sword of Damocles to "persuade" the plaintiffs to call it a day certainly makes a lot more sense than any of the two theories I put forward above. Cinemark could even turn this around into a positive PR outcome by making a high profile offer to settle all the plaintiffs' legal bills on that condition, too.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Take away the convict's opportunities and hope for the future and it will be replaced with the motivation to commit more crime, victimize more people.

And, more broadly, it encourages contempt for law enforcement and the laws being enforced, as illustrated in the movie I Am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang, based so closely on an autobiography that it could almost be called a documentary: the lead character has a minor slip-up in his life, which leads to gnarly consequences from which he can never recover.

We're wandering OT here, so I'll stop.

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 07-02-2016, 07:57 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Now if they could amend the law so that the losing ATTORNEYS would have to pay...

I absolutely agree with that.
About a week ago a maniac driver plowed into the back of the American Legion hall here causing major damage. The city closed the venue until repairs are complete. The Legion made every effort to find another venue for a rental scheduled for the following weekend all to no avail. They even tried to get the city to relent for that one event, again to no avail. Now the renter is threatening to sue the Legion. I'm sure some guppy spawn will be more than willing to pursue the case.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 07-02-2016, 09:40 AM:

Security is, at best, a difficult thing to provide. A uniformed and armed presence is there as a deterrent to dissuade someone from doing something wrong. It also provides reassurance to the public of their safety. Reassurance is a feeling, not a fact – the security personal is usually the first target, more often than not, makes a small wage and unfortunately is often poorly trained. I can say this from personal experience as I worked in the security, personal protection, and investigation business in the 1980’s. Only individuals that show a high degree of smarts, awareness and integrity receive extra training. This is usually to move them from general security into personal security, fugitive recovery or investigations for the company.

It is hard to imagine an average security guard having an awareness to identify the shooter, find a clear path to “take them out” and fire before his shiny badge gives the shooter the advantage. In the bar shooting in Florida, the off-duty cop there as security for the venue was the first killed. If they are in plain clothes with concealed weapons, they are not a deterrent. There is no way to ensure anyone’s safety, almost anywhere.

Been absent for a long time just wanted to weigh in on this subject. Not intending to offend anyone but security in life is largely an illusion, it is just the law of averages if you are hurt or killed or go through life and never stub your toe, ain’t life grand?