30 families sue Colorado Theater Owner

[RamRoddoc]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/judge-allows-lawsuits-against-cinema-owner-colorado-massacre-001522728--finance.html

So if a property owner disarms the public through their policy do they incur liability when those folks could have been legally armed or were but had to disarm to obey?

Interesting.

 

[LMK]

Interesting - I have been waiting to hear about this. Thanks for posting the news.

 

[militaryrednek]

of course....Colorado.......full of liberal idiots. my sister and her family just moved back from there. they didn't even last living a year up there before they said screw it and moved back to Georgia lol.


and with it being a federal judge, if it goes through this makes any area in the states that is a "Gun Free Zone" open to get sued if anything happens on their property.

 

[GeauxLSU]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/judge-all...ner-colorado-massacre-001522728--finance.html

So if a property owner disarms the public through their policy do they incur liability when those folks could have been legally armed or were but had to disarm to obey?

Interesting.

I wish that was the basis for their claim.

 

[JDG.]

I thought this was was ridiculous at first too, but I agree with it now.

If you have the right to disarm someone on your property, you have the liability of their protection. I do hope this goes through trial and they win.

 

[Patronus]

I thought this was was ridiculous at first too, but I agree with it now.

If you have the right to disarm someone on your property, you have the liability of their protection. I do hope this goes through trial and they win.

Zackwy

Edit: With one caveat....only those people who were harmed but had the legal ability to be in possession of a means of self-defense (i.e. a firearm) but were denied that possession by the policy of the theater. That would put the responsibility of protection on the theater by them denying these people the right to protect themselves. The people who were not exercising the right to self-defense have no standing, IMO since the theaters policy did not lessen their own chosen level of protection.

 

[chucklenut]

people will sue for any reason

 

[chucklenut]

I thought this was was ridiculous at first too, but I agree with it now.

If you have the right to disarm someone on your property, you have the liability of their protection. I do hope this goes through trial and they win.

you for go that right by entering and agreeing to the terms

simply put you can either break their stupid little rule or you can adhere to it and run the risk

i dont think theaters have a duty to defend anyone from violence, they have a duty to properly light pathways so you dont fall and hurt yourself

 

[BIKER13]

people will sue for any reason

yes,yes they will.They will fo sho.

 

[Patronus]

you for go that right by entering and agreeing to the terms

simply put you can either break their stupid little rule or you can adhere to it and run the risk

i dont think theaters have a duty to defend anyone from violence, they have a duty to properly light pathways so you dont fall and hurt yourself

If ANY property owner(even a homeowner) invites you onto their property but makes forfeiting your ability to protect yourself a condition of entry then they are responsible for taking appropriate steps to ensure your safety.

You DO have the right to choose not to go, but that does not absolve them of the responsibility to protect those who do enter at the owners request.

Sadly, the courts have rules that homeowners and business owners have the responsibility to protect even people who enter thier property for the purpose of burglary or violence.