Aurora shootings: Survivors sue owners over security

[Wilian]

If the cinema loses, be prepared to see armed guards at the entrance of every single facility. Be it cinema, libraries, whatever comes in mind. And be prepared to pay raised prices for everything because the money to hire them have to come from somewhere.

Why? Because then every retard will sue anyone in case of whatever similiar because they know such cases have been judged in their favour already.

[Deadvolcanoes]

If the cinema loses, be prepared to see armed guards at the entrance of every single facility. Be it cinema, libraries, whatever comes in mind. And be prepared to pay raised prices for everything because the money to hire them have to come from somewhere.

Why? Because then every retard will sue anyone in case of whatever similiar because they know such cases have been judged in their favour already.

The movie theater I go to almost always has a police detail sitting outside on busy nights (friday, saturday, premiers).

Aurora didn't have one on the night of the shooting. It's not uncommon to see police details at large gatherings and public events.

[Kalis]

Are you denying that shootings and violence occur at places of mass gathering? Or are you just denying the need and efforts to stop such things from happening? Is it your belief that we shouldn't spend money to prevent these things from happening because they are incredibly rare?

Oh, and people sneaking into movie theaters without paying is a security threat. Overcrowding, Fire Marshall regulations, etc.

That's not a security threat, it's a health and safety issue.

...and yes, I am saying that a cinema doesn't need to do anything more than to take reasonable precautions to stop a security threat, e.g. checking under seats for suspicious packages, checking peoples bags, etc. - none of which would have had any impact on what happened.

The people responsible are not the cinema operators - direct responsibility is with the shooter, and indirectly it's the irresponsible people that are so retarded they allow military grade weaponry to be purchased with minimal checks.

[vaeevictiss]

It really isn't the cinema's fault for this happening.

it really is. This company has a strict anti gun policy. Which basically means they only allow criminals to carry a gun in there. Could someone having gun in there not helped, of course. But could it also possibly have stopped it before it got as bad as it did, of course. As far as im concerned im willing to take those chances than not having the latter chance at all.

They should most definitely be sued and realize their policy cause several people to die.

[Kalis]

it really is. This company has a strict anti gun policy. Which basically means they only allow criminals to carry a gun in there. Could someone having gun in there not helped, of course. But could it also possibly have stopped it before it got as bad as it did, of course. As far as im concerned im willing to take those chances than not having the latter chance at all.

They should most definitely be sued and realize their policy cause several people to die.

I hope this is sarcasm.

[Wilian]

The movie theater I go to almost always has a police detail sitting outside on busy nights (friday, saturday, premiers).

Aurora didn't have one on the night of the shooting. It's not uncommon to see police details at large gatherings and public events.

I'm not sure what police detail stands for but I assume it is for police responding to large events by keeping up security in the area and this happens independently from their part, not from being requested. It happens in Finland too.

And if that's what you meant I don't see how Aurora would be responsible of police not being there. Police isn't exactly a call up "security service".

[Kalis]

The movie theater I go to almost always has a police detail sitting outside on busy nights (friday, saturday, premiers).

Aurora didn't have one on the night of the shooting. It's not uncommon to see police details at large gatherings and public events.

Isn't the police station very close to the cinema? The reports said they were on the scene in a couple of minutes.

[SomeGuyVT]

The fact that these three people took it upon themselves to sue the theater over poor security for their own damages... and failing to make it a class action lawsuit on behalf of ALL the people involved that evening... just goes to show how money hungry people really are. Are their lives that much more valuable than all the others? I think not.

[Kalis]

I'm not sure what police detail stands for but I assume it is for police responding to large events by keeping up security in the area and this happens independently from their part, not from being requested. It happens in Finland too.

And if that's what you meant I don't see how Aurora would be responsible of police not being there. Police isn't exactly a call up "security service".

Police detail just means that police are present, and they often are requested by event operators if they have reason to believe that their own security might have trouble dealing with an event, e.g. large football matches regularly have a police presence, and that is often paid for by the football club.

Usually, if it's a small event, then the operator would just inform the police that it is occuring and it would be up to the police if they send officers to cover it. Often they just re-route a patrol to go past the event every now and then to check on it.

[Deadvolcanoes]

That's not a security threat, it's a health and safety issue.

...and yes, I am saying that a cinema doesn't need to do anything more than to take reasonable precautions to stop a security threat, e.g. checking under seats for suspicious packages, checking peoples bags, etc. - none of which would have had any impact on what happened.

The people responsible are not the cinema operators - direct responsibility is with the shooter, and indirectly it's the irresponsible people that are so retarded they allow military grade weaponry to be purchased with minimal checks.

Safety and security are synonymous. How do you not see people sneaking into theaters as a security threat? They are guilty of unlawful trespassing and theft since they didn't pay. They could be arrested on spot, and often are when caught. This is an obvious security threat.

And I'm not saying the theater is completely responsible, but I do think that they share a part, since it happened on their property.

[Wilian]

And I'm not saying the theater is completely responsible, but I do think that they share a part, since it happened on their property.

So you toss a big BBQ party at your yard, people get drunk and stuff and then someone comes and shoots your guests. Are you responsible?

[Deadvolcanoes]

I'm not sure what police detail stands for but I assume it is for police responding to large events by keeping up security in the area and this happens independently from their part, not from being requested. It happens in Finland too.

And if that's what you meant I don't see how Aurora would be responsible of police not being there. Police isn't exactly a call up "security service".

In the USA, private companies can hire police officers to secure events. It's called a police detail. This happens at fairs, concerts, etc.

[Kalis]

Safety and security are synonymous. How do you not see people sneaking into theaters as a security threat? They are guilty of unlawful trespassing and theft since they didn't pay. They could be arrested on spot, and often are when caught. This is an obvious security threat.

And I'm not saying the theater is completely responsible, but I do think that they share a part, since it happened on their property.

Someone not paying their ticket is not a security threat to people who have paid, it's a financial issue for the cinema and it's completely up to them how they want to deal with it.

So what if it happened on their property?

---------- Post added 2012-09-23 at 05:24 PM ----------

In the USA, private companies can hire police officers to secure events. It's called a police detail. This happens at fairs, concerts, etc.

It probably happens in Finland too, as it definitely happens elsewherein Europe, but Wilian may just not be aware of it.

[Deadvolcanoes]

So you toss a big BBQ party at your yard, people get drunk and stuff and then someone comes and shoots your guests. Are you responsible?

Sorry but its a bad analogy, the two instances are not relatable. Private residence vs. private business.

However, if someone is jumping on a trampoline at your house and they injure themselves, you can be held responsible.

[Wilian]

It probably happens in Finland too, as it definitely happens elsewherein Europe, but Wilian may just not be aware of it.

Nah, you don't hire police to do stuff for you. But by law you are demanded to inform the local police in the area of the event that event is happening. You will have to tell how large the event is and how much people are expected to come amongst other things. After that police will tell you how much you have to have hired security for it.

Then they make their own judgement call whetever event (due to it's type and it's content and the amount of people) they will be present there.

However, if someone is jumping on a trampoline at your house and they injure themselves, you can be held responsible.

Well that's just plain stupid. Everyone should be personally responsible of their actions no matter where it happens.

[IxilaFA]

The movie theater I go to almost always has a police detail sitting outside on busy nights (friday, saturday, premiers).

Aurora didn't have one on the night of the shooting. It's not uncommon to see police details at large gatherings and public events.

How would a police detail change what happened? You do realize that the shooter opened up an emergency exit on the back side of the property, right next to where his car was parked, and took a two second stroll to the trunk of his car for the weapons. I'm not sure on the timeline exactly, but we're talking probably a total of 5 minutes for him to leave his seat, grab his weapons, and come back in. Most police details I've seen set up a couple of cars on the outside the entrance of the theater, with maybe one or two cops patrolling the lobby. They would've not even seen the massacre happen until they heard people running out. In fact, things could've been made worse, because if they charged into the theater room not knowing what was going on, they could've gotten themselves shot, etc. Police details are there to stop things that are inevitable with large groups of people gathering in one spot: arguments, fighting, maybe a stray knife or two. In the events of football games or concerts, it could very easily get out of hand without a police attachment. They don't have the necessary training or numbers to deal with random incidences of domestic terrorism.

it really is. This company has a strict anti gun policy. Which basically means they only allow criminals to carry a gun in there. Could someone having gun in there not helped, of course. But could it also possibly have stopped it before it got as bad as it did, of course. As far as im concerned im willing to take those chances than not having the latter chance at all.

They should most definitely be sued and realize their policy cause several people to die.

You're going down a bad road with this argument. You can't prove your point that allowing other people to carry guns would've saved lives. People who are psychotically deranged enough to murder an entire room full of individuals, such as the shooter in question, aren't going to be deterred by the fact that one or two guys may have had a gun. Who knows, maybe nobody would have had a gun anyways? Or maybe two guys would have, and in the cross fire a few more children got shot. Besides the fact that the shooter was wearing military grade body armor. Most casual gun owners are not trained how to avoid body armor and will like aim for the chest.

Safety and security are synonymous. How do you not see people sneaking into theaters as a security threat? They are guilty of unlawful trespassing and theft since they didn't pay. They could be arrested on spot, and often are when caught. This is an obvious security threat.

And I'm not saying the theater is completely responsible, but I do think that they share a part, since it happened on their property.

They are arrested for trespassing and theft because those are crimes. Last I checked, there is no crime for "being present at a location." These people don't pose a threat just by being there. They start to pose a threat when weapons are involved, or they harm someone, or something of the sort. I see people sneaking into theaters as trespassing and stealing from an organization, not as a legitimate security threat. When was the last time we've ever had a cinema shooting? This was an isolated incident, not something that is a problem across the nation.

I don't think the cinema should bare any responsibly, except maybe whatever their conscious makes them bare. If you start using the "because it happened on your property" rule, then you're heading down a slippery slope to removing our freedoms as Americans. Now somebody could break into your house and kill you, and it would be your fault because you didn't take the proper precautions to secure your property.

Sorry but its a bad analogy, the two instances are not relatable. Private residence vs. private business.

However, if someone is jumping on a trampoline at your house and they injure themselves, you can be held responsible.

In a court of law, private property is private property, there's no distinguishing between the two, excepting in case of stuff like fire regulations, etc. They are the exact same. You held an event, just like the cinema did. Someone YOU invited starts shooting up people, just like the shooter in this incident. Despite all of your safety preparations (making sure all the exits are clear of obstructions, ensuring your backyard can safely hold the thirty people you invite, making sure uninvited guests aren't allowed in), this still happened. It's the exact same scenario, you can't just dismiss it because it counters your point of view. The cinema did everything reasonable within their power to protect their financial interests. Along with complying to local regulations, this is all that can be required of a privately owned business. Since there is apparently no regulation in Aurora to "prevent any unforeseen acts of domestic terrorism," then they haven't broken any laws and are not responsible in the least bit.

At least from a legal angle. If we're arguing opinion here then we're not going to get anywhere.

Also for the trampoline incident, if your trampoline was safely constructed and secured, then you most definitely cannot be held responsible for someone being injured on your trampoline. Like I said, they can always sue. We live in a land of independence and freedom, so anybody has rights to financial compensation if they deem that the defendant is guilty of causing a security hazard, etc. But that doesn't mean they will win, and it's a long shot that they will (although since the McDonald's coffee incident, I don't think I can trust any lawsuit anymore.)

[Kalis]

Nah, you don't hire police to do stuff for you. But by law you are demanded to inform the local police in the area of the event that event is happening. You will have to tell how large the event is and how much people are expected to come amongst other things. After that police will tell you how much you have to have hired security for it.

Then they make their own judgement call whetever event (due to it's type and it's content and the amount of people) they will be present there.

If HJK Helsinki draw Arsenal in the Champions League, then would the police cover the costs of their own presence? In England, it would be Arsenal's responsibility to cover the extra police costs if they are required.

[Wilian]

If HJK Helsinki draw Arsenal in the Champions League, then would the police cover the costs of their own presence? In England, it would be Arsenal's responsibility to cover the extra police costs if they are required.

The event itself would be required by law to handle it's own security to an acceptable level. Police would be there in supportive role (for emergencies) and as far as I know, at the payroll of the city as per usual.

The amount of tourism such event would bring should take care of the extra cost and effort.

[Deleted]

I haven't met in my entire life a human being that kept himself from blaming the closest possible target.

[IxilaFA]

The event itself would be required by law to handle it's own security to an acceptable level. Police would be there in supportive role (for emergencies) and as far as I know, at the payroll of the city as per usual.

With how hard it is for an American city to even pay their law enforcement officers these days, I doubt they're willing to keep a few on hand for a relatively minor event. That comes with overtime pay as well, which is even more expense. Something like a football game might have like, assigned officers who are pulled from patrol to watch over the game, but a movie premier is not going to draw anything close to that sort of police presence. It's like someone pointed out earlier, the usual patrols might be directed to double up the area and sweep the parking lot, and if there is a detail, they'll probably just park a car out front and sweep the lobby occasionally.

What people seem to be expecting is, a movie event that draws maybe 1000 people in one night should attract the same level of police attention as a football game that attracts 75,000 people in one night. Hell, I've been to major league baseball games with 20 times the attendance of this movie event, and the only police you could find were patrolling outside. The rest was handled by private security officers (essentially someone with just a security badge and who looks imposing.)