Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
68. It is not the business owner's responsibility to protect patrons from crazies.
Tue Sep 25, 2012, 12:45 PM
Sep 2012

However, the trick of propping open an exit door is as old as the hills, and from a business angle alone, they should have alarmed all exit doors and have cameras on them.
The responsibility of a business owner should not extend to unpredictable violent acts by others, just because they own the premises.

No. tk2kewl Sep 2012 #1
Right. Thanks, tk2kewl. elleng Sep 2012 #3
Actually, if you read the claim, the problem being cited is that they failed to alarm the door, TPaine7 Sep 2012 #5
And the police were there to prevent this... right? PavePusher Sep 2012 #25
No. Foolish premise. elleng Sep 2012 #2
The real foolish premise is that TPaine7 Sep 2012 #7
The Police are under no obligation to protect you and can't Missycim Sep 2012 #16
While LEOs may TRY to "protect the public," it is not their legal charge... Eleanors38 Sep 2012 #20
One more time: It is not the police's responsibility to protect you DonP Sep 2012 #24
"It is the responsibility of law enforcement to protect the public." PavePusher Sep 2012 #26
actually the opposite should be true bowens43 Sep 2012 #4
This is a clownishly silly argument. Anyone who is fooled by it deserves to be. TPaine7 Sep 2012 #10
You forgot the sarcasm tag, right? PavePusher Sep 2012 #28
I carry a concelled weapon Berserker Sep 2012 #34
Open bigotry and accusation of criminal intent. Stay classy, O.K.? n/t PavePusher Sep 2012 #65
We have this public service called "the police" that we pay taxes for that provides this service Warren Stupidity Sep 2012 #6
What service is that, exactly? TPaine7 Sep 2012 #8
Then by your logic, everyone who isn't armed is legally responsible for not protecting everyone else MotherPetrie Sep 2012 #11
?????! TPaine7 Sep 2012 #14
I would not rely on that logic in a court of law. JDPriestly Sep 2012 #23
12 year olds w/ guns? Cool straw man, bro. nt rDigital Sep 2012 #37
In a world full of armed adults, a child would be caught in the cross-fire all too often. JDPriestly Sep 2012 #54
What was called into question was 12 yos with guns; that's the strawman. TPaine7 Sep 2012 #64
Sovereign immunity might be an issue. TPaine7 Sep 2012 #38
exactly!! ~nt 99th_Monkey Sep 2012 #31
You people really won't stop until EVERYONE is FORCED to be armed, will you? MotherPetrie Sep 2012 #9
You simply shoehorn your pre-existing beliefs into whatever you read that isn't anti-gun, don't you? TPaine7 Sep 2012 #15
"You people..." Eleanors38 Sep 2012 #21
Citation to your Strawman(tm), please? n/t PavePusher Sep 2012 #32
Not true. We don't want criminals, the young, the mentally unstable or "you people" to be armed DonP Sep 2012 #40
you will not stop until you diss every group on du. good little.... seabeyond Sep 2012 #51
It's all about making lawyers happy... ileus Sep 2012 #12
absolutely not.... mike_c Sep 2012 #13
I don't walk in constant fear Berserker Sep 2012 #36
therefore all gun owners should be repsonsible for all gun crime then nt msongs Sep 2012 #17
you're funny discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #53
Not at all. It's the business owner's freedom, and the customers' choice. Glaug-Eldare Sep 2012 #18
Ok, I respect most of that view. TPaine7 Sep 2012 #19
Fair enough, that was a bit hyperbolic Glaug-Eldare Sep 2012 #22
Should the gun manufacturer be liable? Arctic Dave Sep 2012 #27
I think that's why we have Police and Security Guards, no? ~nt 99th_Monkey Sep 2012 #29
And they did a wonderful job in this case, no? No one was hurt. Oh, wait... n/t TPaine7 Sep 2012 #39
Where does it say that the Cinemark theater in question had a sign? 99th_Monkey Sep 2012 #50
It didn't that I noticed. TPaine7 Sep 2012 #57
So the "problem" is merely an imaginary one. 99th_Monkey Sep 2012 #61
No it is clearly the policy of Cinemark to forbid concealed guns (or any guns) at their theaters. TPaine7 Sep 2012 #62
Snipers posted at the football stadium? JohnnyRingo Sep 2012 #30
The people bringing suit in the OPs case had a few simple issues. TPaine7 Sep 2012 #42
Forbidding guns IS protecting their patrons! I will never let a gun into my business. robinlynne Sep 2012 #33
Really? So the suing people weren't actually hurt and no one was killed? TPaine7 Sep 2012 #41
no diea what you are talking about. the question is: Should guns be allowed in businesses. If not, robinlynne Sep 2012 #43
... TPaine7 Sep 2012 #44
the problme in thsat case was a LACK OF GUN CONTROL in this country! That is why people were killed robinlynne Sep 2012 #49
But,... but... they had the protective sign! Aren't signs a form of gun control? n/t TPaine7 Sep 2012 #59
Yes I do Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #35
People who don't disarm the NRA should all be blamed for any gun killing graham4anything Sep 2012 #45
Which Constitutional right is that, now? n/t Glaug-Eldare Sep 2012 #46
Perhaps you would like to cite that right? glacierbay Sep 2012 #55
No quakerboy Sep 2012 #47
Does the same apply in the reverse case--in an establishment that does not forbid carry? TPaine7 Sep 2012 #48
Probably quakerboy Sep 2012 #63
Reverse brush Sep 2012 #52
Why would they worry? TPaine7 Sep 2012 #58
Exactamondo brush Sep 2012 #66
I say "No" in both directions - a private property owner should be able to bar petronius Sep 2012 #56
Good points, especially Starbucks. Thanks. n/t TPaine7 Sep 2012 #60
If you're not required to be there rrneck Sep 2012 #67
It is not the business owner's responsibility to protect patrons from crazies. Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #68
Well Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #70
Not sure what you mean by disarm. Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #71
NO!!! None At All. DWC Sep 2012 #69
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Should businesses that fo...»Reply #68