30 families sue Colorado Theater Owner

[ROTAM]

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 don't believe so. After seeing the owner's policy, they had the opportunity to leave the property. Instead, they chose to disarm and remain there.

 

[alnen]

The theatre opened themselves up to this sort of situation. However, I believe in all rights, including private property. They should not be held liable for this, patrons disarmed on their own accord to comply with the theater. Unfortunate, but people need to realize that they are responsible for their own safety.

 

[tv_racin_fan]

I never said I hope one way or another, just trying to clarify what I think others were saying.

I am on the fence on this one. On one hand I think its grasping at straws trying to blame the theater unless they have evidence that the theater did something negligent such as having an unsecured door or something.

On the other hand I would like there to be a case that shows how "gun free" zones dont work.

Unsecured door? Like the one the shooter apparently opened and fixed it so it wouldn't lock so he could later come in thru that unlocked door? Is that the unsecured door you speak of?

 

[Ken Ford]

I must be speaking Greek.... they are NOT suing to allow people the right to SD. You guys are projecting your WANTS trying to make them reality.Again, they are suiing for MONEY under the premise that the COMPANY didn't PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION. No where is there any hint that allowing MORE guns by customers will be brought up (except possibly by the DEFENSE). If they DID allow carry the lawsuit would STILL be taking place.

The question is if they win MONEY will other buisnesses, and more importantly, or the insurance company's rethink the liability (monetary) aspect of their policies.Just because they are not suing for CC or whatever does not mean there will be no other aspects to consider.Think outside the box a little. Depending on the case presented this MIGHT have a positive outcome. Then again it might not, but this is a discussion forum and all possible outcomes get to be discussed.

 

[armedplinkster89]

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.

Wasn't sure of it at first either, but I hope they when to

 

[Ken Ford]

I said you are blinded by the 2A and common sense. "The courts" and the people of Colorado, do not share the same view. Clearer now?

The people of Colorado were furious with the laws passed. They have been recalling and voting out the polititions that passed that travesty!

 

[chucklenut]

i see your plasma gun and raise you a rail gun with xray scope.
View attachment 306654

ophh snap


ill go old school

[Broken External Image]:

 

[GeauxLSU]

The question is if they win MONEY will other buisnesses, and more importantly, or the insurance company's rethink the liability (monetary) aspect of their policies.Just because they are not suing for CC or whatever does not mean there will be no other aspects to consider.Think outside the box a little. Depending on the case presented this MIGHT have a positive outcome. Then again it might not, but this is a discussion forum and all possible outcomes get to be discussed.

I completely agree. I think the most probable outcome as stated is it gets thrown out or it results in LESS carry priviledges.