Latest Breaking News

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)

91. The gun trolls are showing their asses

Reply to Blue_Tires (Original post)

Sun Sep 4, 2016, 11:10 PM

Sep 2016

Last edited Mon Sep 5, 2016, 01:13 AM - Edit history (1)

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

103 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Aurora shooting massacre survivors ordered to pay Cinemark theater chain $700,000 [View all] Blue_Tires Sep 2016 OP

Time for a GoFundMe 47of74 Sep 2016 #1

Hopefully Cinemark lawyers convince their client that forgiving the debt would be more valuable 63splitwindow Sep 2016 #2

They were dumb to sue in the first place yeoman6987 Sep 2016 #12

Attacking the victims I see. Kingofalldems Sep 2016 #30

Cinemark is also a victim in this case. NutmegYankee Sep 2016 #32

They should have accepted the settlement Duckhunter935 Sep 2016 #38

Post removed Post removed Sep 2016 #90

Cinemark is opening themselves up to a boycott. LanternWaste Sep 2016 #3

Exactly! nt avebury Sep 2016 #34

I doubt yet another boycott will fluff dust in the Gobi. Eleanors38 Sep 2016 #97

Fuck Cinemark if they try to collect. Iggo Sep 2016 #4

Clearly not all publicity is good publicity PatSeg Sep 2016 #5

Aurora massacre survivors sued. How did 4 end up owing the theater $700,000? elleng Sep 2016 #6

All but four dropped out of the federal lawsuit. NaturalHigh Sep 2016 #85

All but 4 took the advice given by the lawyers MichMan Sep 2016 #86

Just for pursuing this claim I will never go to a Cinemark Theater again. nt TeamPooka Sep 2016 #7

I'm going to one this weekend Travis_0004 Sep 2016 #26

"Should every business be sued if an armed gunman enters that business." avebury Sep 2016 #36

"there are consequences for allowing armed patrons inside" mwrguy Sep 2016 #43

The theatre was a gun free business. NutmegYankee Sep 2016 #51

This is quite an uneducated statement. MadDAsHell Sep 2016 #56

Wow Cal Carpenter Sep 2016 #84

We really should be thanking the movie industry for our current romance with guns nolabels Sep 2016 #93

Some of the plaintiffs turned down a settlement MichMan Sep 2016 #8

I hope so. Claiming theater liability here sounds weak, at best, to me. Tragic beyond words, YES. 63splitwindow Sep 2016 #9

Suing the theater is really unfair to the theater. A case like this would open up any business to still_one Sep 2016 #16

There is a line of thought in personal injury/wrongful death litigation that if the damages/injury 63splitwindow Sep 2016 #20

By who, personal injury lawyers? n/t MichMan Sep 2016 #35

Both sides of the situation, that's why a settlement offer was made. They don't pay for giggles. 63splitwindow Sep 2016 #37

Heck, if you can't bring food or drinks into the theater, you shouldn't be allowed politicaljunkie41910 Sep 2016 #50

Except that isn't how it happened. He went in first without any weapons, and sat in the front still_one Sep 2016 #54

If they try to collect, I recommend boycotting the tropes NotHardly Sep 2016 #10

I encourage boycotting tropes. Igel Sep 2016 #65

I have simile views about this tale. Eleanors38 Sep 2016 #98

Cue gun fetishists to show up and attack gun victims' families. nt onehandle Sep 2016 #11

More like attacking frivolous lawsuits AllTooEasy Sep 2016 #19

Nope, they should have accepted the settlement Duckhunter935 Sep 2016 #28

No way, onehandle. Nobody at DU is low enough to literally grave dance. nt onehandle Sep 2016 #44

If only some random asshole had been there with a legal firearm Orrex Sep 2016 #13

WHAT??? dicksmc3 Sep 2016 #15

I think the poster was being sarcastic AllTooEasy Sep 2016 #21

Gotta think he was being sarcastic. 63splitwindow Sep 2016 #22

The cops thought he was a cop IronLionZion Sep 2016 #25

Unless of course, there were, say, 12 random untrained assholes ... brett_jv Sep 2016 #89

I can't believe his shit!! dicksmc3 Sep 2016 #14

Cinemark offered to settle and were turned down MichMan Sep 2016 #17

If anything the laywers that told the victims to sue the theater in the first place should be still_one Sep 2016 #18

They were advised to settle MichMan Sep 2016 #27

Appreciate the explanation. Thanks still_one Sep 2016 #46

Why in the world should Cinemark pay medical expenses? obamanut2012 Sep 2016 #80

They're paying for making a frivolous lawsuit AllTooEasy Sep 2016 #23

Reading is helpful. GeorgeGist Sep 2016 #24

Not the only frivolous lawsuit for this shooting incident MichMan Sep 2016 #29

The validity of that claim could, IMO, depend on how the shooter presented at purchase time... 63splitwindow Sep 2016 #33

that plainly sucks! chillfactor Sep 2016 #31

They knew what they were doing Duckhunter935 Sep 2016 #39

Everyone should be informed that to walk into a Cinemark theater Binkie The Clown Sep 2016 #40

Don't make frivolous lawsuits and you don't have to pay legal fees. FLPanhandle Sep 2016 #41

Would you be happier to walk into a Cinemark theater, christx30 Sep 2016 #42

Ugh, if the theater did that I can well imagine the cries of "Police state" and other cstanleytech Sep 2016 #52

Oh I agree completely. christx30 Sep 2016 #59

Hey I am not arguing since most theaters, grocery stores or other retail stores do not cstanleytech Sep 2016 #61

Again, I agree with you. christx30 Sep 2016 #64

So, Binkie, are you saying there is a theater chain in the US where this couldn't have happened? Nitram Sep 2016 #49

I need to go see a movie Duckhunter935 Sep 2016 #53

When hell freezes over and pigs fly. Loki Sep 2016 #45

For defending themselves against a frivolous lawsuit? Travis_0004 Sep 2016 #47

Quite simply, yes. Loki Sep 2016 #55

If someone sued you for something christx30 Sep 2016 #60

Wow obamanut2012 Sep 2016 #79

Not every institution or business owes you damages for the acts of others... Eleanors38 Sep 2016 #99

How do the litigants blame the theater? Nitram Sep 2016 #48

It doesn't specifically how many of the survivors joined the law suit, but let's napi21 Sep 2016 #57

Well you can continue guessing or you could read post #27. cstanleytech Sep 2016 #62

Thanks. I didn't see that before I wrote mine. I still stand by what I said though. napi21 Sep 2016 #67

Foreclose on their house to recover the funds Travis_0004 Sep 2016 #63

You should read the article tammywammy Sep 2016 #72

They had to pay $500,000 for expert testimony against themselves. OMG doc03 Sep 2016 #58

Yup. Igel Sep 2016 #66

With any luck... GummyBearz Sep 2016 #69

Where's Bloomberg and the Brady Bunch? They encourage such suits, but fly when the bill is due. X_Digger Sep 2016 #68

How is a shooting different from a fire? If Cinemark wasn't fully insured they should have been. ucrdem Sep 2016 #70

Generally speaking... Sand Rat Expat Sep 2016 #71

I agree with your post, but... Calista241 Sep 2016 #73

That wasn't my intention, no. Sand Rat Expat Sep 2016 #88

I don't think the issue is negligence; it's responsibility. ucrdem Sep 2016 #74

Why should Cinemark have to make amends? RelativelyJones Sep 2016 #75

Insurance is a cost of doing business, and a reasonable expectation of safety ucrdem Sep 2016 #76

Does the same hold true for Sandy Hook? MichMan Sep 2016 #77

I don't think you understand what insurance is for. X_Digger Sep 2016 #81

Uhg GummyBearz Sep 2016 #82

Respectfully disagree with you in this particular case. Sand Rat Expat Sep 2016 #87

I am not a "big business" apologist by any means, but Cinemark is not in the wrong obamanut2012 Sep 2016 #78

Crazy weapons guy enters your house while you have friends over for a cribbage night Blandocyte Sep 2016 #83

The gun trolls are showing their asses CreekDog Sep 2016 #91

Indeed, yes. Sand Rat Expat Sep 2016 #92

As are the anti-gun trolls hack89 Sep 2016 #95

Well, don't fall face-first when tailing me. Eleanors38 Sep 2016 #100

Interesting, all you have are insults directed at DU members Duckhunter935 Sep 2016 #102

Shame. But they have to pay to try to game the system. GOLGO 13 Sep 2016 #94

"there is no intention to actually seek recovery of the court costs" oberliner Sep 2016 #96

Looks like the... deathrind Sep 2016 #101

Lawyers victimize victims HassleCat Sep 2016 #103