the lawyers are circling and filing suit against the theaters for not protecting them from the shooter.

I know people want compensation and even revenge. But really? does anyone know what the ramifications are going to be? We are not going to be able to walk into a restaurant, store, mall, etc without being searched. They will take even more measures to violate our freedoms. IMO, I would be more interested in them suing the online gun shops that he was able to get his arsenal from. Put restrictions on things like that. He HAD to have bought the stuff illegally. So go after them, not the theater

Yeah really, HOW was the theater to know that during the midnight premiere, some med school psycho would be coming in like it was Batman vs. Rambo?

He bought everything legally W2L.

Quote :

In fact, 24-year-old Holmes legally purchased every firearm, bullet, and piece of tactical gear that he used for the attack, according to local law enforcement. He bought most of it over the Internet. Mentally ill people are barred from purchasing firearms, but Holmes had no previous record of illness, and would not have been flagged in a background check.


http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/07/25/586611/romney-falsely-claims-colorado-gunman-obtained-weapons-illegally/

Supernova wrote:

Yeah really, HOW was the theater to know that during the midnight premiere, some med school psycho would be coming in like it was Batman vs. Rambo?

I think the problem there is going to be the way he accessed the theater. He shouldn't have been able to do that so I doubt there's much of an out there. But only the people physically harmed should be party to any suit.

This is the U.S. so you can file a lawsuit for just about anything. The victims and their families have my sympathy but I think it's a long stretch to call the theater negligent.

Quote :

Survivors of the Aurora movie theater shootings and the families of those killed will have a high hurdle to clear if they try to sue the theater or others, legal experts say.

"The only obvious civil defendant is the shooter himself, and I doubt that he has anything in the way of assets or insurance," said Tom Russell, a professor of law at the University of Denver and a personal injury lawyer.

That hasn't stopped speculation about whether there will be lawsuits against the Cinemark Holdings-owned theater where James Eagan Holmes is alleged to have shot or wounded 70 people, leaving 12 dead.

Russell and others say plaintiffs would have to show that the theater should have foreseen that the shootings could have taken place.

"Did the movie theater know or have reason to know that some kind of violent crime might affect their patrons?" Russell said. "It's beyond belief that they would know this kind of attack was coming."

He said that in cases where courts have held businesses liable for crime on their premises, plaintiffs have demonstrated a pattern existed — such as repeated robberies at the business or assaults in its parking lot.

"I'd argue that this isn't a pattern," said Russell, who added that the theater is a victim in the shooting as well, suffering a loss of business as a result.

Alexia Brunet Marks, a professor of law at the University of Colorado, and also an expert on personal injury law, agreed a case against the theater wouldn't be easy.

"That's going to be very, very difficult to show that this heinous act was foreseeable (by the theater)," she said.

Still, she added, "I do think there are going to be some lawsuits against the theater complex."

Bob Schuetze, a Boulder attorney who represented families of Columbine victims in a lawsuit, said that in the Columbine suit, the homeowner's insurance companies of the teenaged perpetrators' parents settled with victims, even though homeowner's insurance typically does not cover intentional or criminal acts. In the present case, the alleged shooter is a 24-year-old man who apparently bought a ticket, entered theater 9, left through an emergency door and re-entered through the same door.

Whether the theater gets sued centers on the details that emerge, Schuetze said.

"The potential liability could exist with respect to the theater for lack of security or if there was negligent conduct on the part of theater personnel," Schuetze said. "In my mind, I have a question about how someone can leave the movie theater for (minutes) and re-enter the theater without some kind of alarm going off or raising the attention of theater employees."

Cinemark Holdings officials declined comment on the case Tuesday and referred a reporter to a prior statement in which the company said it was "deeply saddened about this tragic incident."

So what about other potential lawsuits?

While Holmes reportedly received packages containing ammunition at the University of Colorado, where he was a graduate student, it would be difficult to find the school liable, Russell said.

"I don't see how they've acted unreasonably," he said. "The mere fact that they (the university) received packages is not unreasonable. Lots of us get packages at work.

"You'd have to show that somehow they should have known that this was dangerous toward the public at-large."

And even if the college was found liable, as a governmental entity it has sovereign immunity, Russell said. The maximum award against CU could be only $150,000 per person, with a total cap of $600,000 in cases involving more than one person.

All three agreed that any lawsuit against the studio that made "The Dark Knight Rises," which was being shown when the shooting started, would be an extreme long shot.

"Ridiculous," Russell said.

"I would say that would certainly be a stretch," Schuetze said.

Suits against video game and film companies after the Columbine shootings ultimately failed, as did a lawsuit alleging the movie "Natural Born Killers" inspired a murder.

Russell said lawsuits against any doctors or therapists who may have treated or prescribed medication to the alleged shooter would similarly face an uphill battle.

"That's a non-starter," Russell said. "The only way that suit is going to have any legs is if he very specifically told a psychiatrist that he had these plans and he made it specific enough that you could identify who the victims were going to be."

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21150830/legal-experts-say-liability-lawsuits-stand-little-chance?source=rss

I read yesterday that gun sales online are soaring in case of impending restrictions.

I've read that some of the hospitals aren't charging some of the victims. That was nice to hear.

Alan Smithee wrote:

I've read that some of the hospitals aren't charging some of the victims. That was nice to hear.

That's great news. Really feel for some of them & the situation they're in.