Straight Edge
Member
Absolutely this.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Cinemark is asking plaintiffs in Aurora shooting lawsuit for $700k
- Thread starter Malyse
- Start date
- Status
Absolutely this.
sunshine and gasoline
Banned
People won't stop going to the movies over this but they may choose to go to other movie theaters instead of Cinemark theaters over this provided that they have the option of doing so.
I do believe that in time most people will more than likely forget about it so in the long run it won't be a big deal for Cinemark.
Good for them, I hope they spank the families for the tasteless and pointless cash grab.
Also LOL at all the people screaming "Bad PR!" Roughly 60% of this thread thinks the theatre is justified, and next to no one not reading threads like these on forum message boards even has heard about it.
Also LOL at all the people screaming "Bad PR!" Roughly 60% of this thread thinks the theatre is justified, and next to no one not reading threads like these on forum message boards even has heard about it.
sunshine and gasoline
Banned
A quick search shows that their yearly revenue is around 2.8 billion. Their net income is a bit over 200 million per year.
DizzyCaffeine
Member
I guess Cinemark displayed "callous apathy" by defending themselves in the lawsuit, right? Should have just given the plaintiffs what they wanted so that they wouldn't be in pain anymore.
Except Cinemark did nothing wrong and James Holmes is to blame. Unfortunately, he doesn't have a dime, so they went after the next best thing.
.
Eppy Thatcher
God's had his chance.
Why did they try to sue cinemark in the first place? Like if someone gets stabbed or shot in a 711 you can just sue 711 cause hey this shit happened on your property?
I mean from every angle this sucks but come the fuck on...
I mean from every angle this sucks but come the fuck on...
Ninja Scooter
Member
You have to be able to prove that 7/11 was somehow negligent and it lead to the stabbing. Like, if 7/11 hired a known psychopath and that guy stabbed you while you were paying for your lotto tickets, maybe you could sue them and win. I mean, in hindsight we can all say there should have been armed guards or security or the exit doors should have been locked at all times, but before Aurora I had been to the theater hundreds of times in my life and never once did I think "You know, someone could use that back door to come in here and mow us all down with an assault rifle..."
Oh I don't doubt many theaters have changed their policies now. Especially in the wake of this shooting.
Really, the lawyers who convinced the families to sue should be held accountable. There should be done punishment for lawyers pushing frivolous lawsuits, which is what this appears to be. The families get a pass because grief is a horrible thing, but the lawyers walk away with hundreds of thousands of dollars, win or lose.
Imperfected
Member
Though it's obviously not going to happen, is it possible there's a provision to put the onus on the lawyers as a result of providing incompetent counsel (given it can be established that any reasonably competent lawyer would have advised them not to pursue the case, of course)?
d00d3n
Member
Yes, this. Just a fair application of the US legal system. The Cinemark people should have expected people going to the media with the counter-demand, but they are on the right side of the law. The lawsuit itself seems frivolous to me.
Trying to make a profit over a loved ones death doesn't seem morally right either. No matter how "distraught" you are.
It's something that has been discussed a lot around, but if you're hosting an event, especially one taking place in a "gun free zone" it seems pretty natural that you'd provide the security needed for your patrons. They obviously had no such thing and the patrons in their care was badly hurt and killed.
They're required to provide safety within reasonable expectations. Posting security guards wherever there is a gathering of 10+ people on the off chance that a mass murder may take place is not a reasonable expectation.
Following this line of thought, the movie theater should also come equipped with bomb shelters.
T
Transhuman
Unconfirmed Member
Don't be stupid. They are just asking for a similar level of security that other movie viewing locations have. For instance, a few years ago I saw Frozen and before they let us watch it they had us walk through metal detectors, they checked our ID's, they had an armed federal law-enforcement agent there to make sure nothing went wrong, and they scanned our baggage for any suspicious objects and stored them in a separate part of the plane. This is the expected level of security every movie viewing should have.
pacificrex
Banned
I'd agree that the victims didn't have a good case against the theater, but to counter sue in this situation, that seems really low (obviously)
I'm surprised the leadership up high at Cinemark is doing this, not a good way to attract new business
I'm surprised the leadership up high at Cinemark is doing this, not a good way to attract new business
Not gonna lie you almost had my until you said plane
It's pretty standard operating procedure for a defendant in these situations. I think there's a PR reason to argue they shouldn't, but given how misguided the lawsuit is, I find I can't really begrudge it.
This seems like something the lawyers did without chatting with PR. It's one of those situations where they're not doing anything wrong, but the perception is going to bite them with people who don't get past the surface level headline. (Which is probably a lot of people.)
Night Angel
Member
Good for Cinemark. The people suing the theater should be ashamed for their cash grab.
Empathy can only go so far, and the "but they're so emotional" defense doesn't pass the sniff test seeing as they've had the ability to drop the suit long after the massacre.
People accusing others in this thread of being callous or heartless because we don't think letting opportunistic weasels walk all over an innocent party is the way to go really need to double check their logic.
Empathy can only go so far, and the "but they're so emotional" defense doesn't pass the sniff test seeing as they've had the ability to drop the suit long after the massacre.
People accusing others in this thread of being callous or heartless because we don't think letting opportunistic weasels walk all over an innocent party is the way to go really need to double check their logic.
Alcibiades
Member
In news stories about this, the online comments seem to be nearly all on Cinemark's side. The headline looks bad but even a cursory look into the story results in people understanding whats up.
In a nutshell.
$700,000 is not chump change to a movie theater chain in 2016. I'm not sure $700,000 is chump change to Bill Gates.
In my mind it's a matter of pure fucking greed on these places parts.
It should be made to law that you provide armed security if you're taking care of 100 patrons or more if you're going to have a gun free zone where the patrons aren't allowed to take care of themselves.
You can keep whining about the gun laws and the 2nd amendment, but the reality they're living in right now means something like this is necessary.
I'm going to take an educated guess and say that the vast majority of massacres takes place in gun free zones...
shira
Member
Mass and prayer just got a lot more armed and dangerous
Why do people think this? The plaintiffs' lawyers almost certainly lost money, and, more likely than not, a fairly significant amount of money.
Gamer @ Heart
Member
Na. The internet won't remember this a week from now, and the whole point of the minimal countersuit is to stop they money hungry lawyers who jumped on the victims family to drop the appeal and keep this mess going.
GitarooMan
Member
I'm sure this has been covered, but this is pretty common in civil suits and usually unsuccessful in the end. I think it's a super PR nightmare in this case though and I think the actual loss of goodwill alone should have been enough to think twice about it here.
Booker Dewitt
Member
KO Traveling Hobo
Member
You don't see anything wrong with criticizing the empathy of others in the same post where you say "I don't care how you feel or why you feel that way, and I'm not even going to try."?
ZackieChan
Member
They do this kind of lawsuit on contingency. They get a significant portion of the damages (maybe 40%) if they win. They probably spent a ton of time on it, because they thought they would win or settle. Now they're not getting paid anything.
Do you think armed security would really be all that effective? The shooter was dressed for a potential gun fight, threw tear gas, and clearly was firing indiscriminately. Also having audience members with guns firing into the gas attempting to hit the shooter just seems like it'd make things worse. The only issue I take is with the emergency exit not setting off an alarm or at the very least alerting management. I don't think they're so much to blame though that this should be dragged out for so long.
wesleyshark
Banned
They shouldn't have sued the cinema. It was a ridiculous idea in the first place.
bodyboarder
Member
Dudes worth $86 billion dollars, it's chump change to him.
Is there a link to that? I find it hard to believe they actually thought they could win.
highrider
Banned
Pretty much. It's patently ridiculous to sue the theatre for the acts of a deranged man. But I'm sure they have quite a bit more money than the deranged man.
Imperfected
Member
If I'm not mistaken, part of the responsibility of a lawyer is to advise on these sort of issues, which should include telling the families, "This is a frivolous lawsuit with little chance of succeeding and a high chance of backfiring. Don't pursue it."
If they failed to do so, they should absolutely be out a small mountain of money in this situation. If they did warn their clients, well... they should still be out their fees (don't take a job you know is stupid), but at least not responsible for additional expenses.
We clearly have very different views of the world. I'd rather not have armed security everywhere that more than 100 people are present, as that sounds like some kind of dystopian nightmare. I'll take my chances with the mass murderers.
I'm also not sure what being a "gun free zone" has to do with anything. A security guard wouldn't be necessary if there's a possibility that one of the patrons is carrying a gun? What if guns were welcome in the theater, but nobody happened to have a gun on the day of the mass shooting? Then who is to blame? The patrons for not having brought guns with them? If my kid gets killed in a mass shooting at a gun-welcome theater, do I get to sue everybody who didn't bring a gun that day?
Your argument makes no sense. But really, it doesn't matter anyways. All the theater needs to do is make sure the aisles are illuminated, the building has fire exits, keeping the bathroom sanitary, and stuff of that nature. Being constantly prepared for the outbreak of a gun battle is not something a movie theater should have to be concerned with.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
It's not fair to limit the justice system to cases with a 'good chance of winning'. Many cases had a tough chance on winning and luckily, was pushed thru and succeeded despite the odds.
In that case, never sue a huge company because they can buy million dollar lawyers. That's tort reform by default.
Put another way, keep giving advantages to the rich. See why this rule goes bad? Seems like a good idea against frivolous lawsuits for people with limited means.
I'm just going to avoid Cinemark.
Imperfected
Member
There's a difference between "your case is unlikely to win because Cinemark has a crack legal team" and "your case is unlikely to win because it's fundamentally moronic and would be a miscarriage of justice if it were to succeed". A lawyer is responsible for apprising their clients of the difference.
If the clients choose to continue to pursue the case despite being told it's being done without firm legal ground, they're responsible for the fallout. If the lawyers fail to tell their clients their case lacks any reasonable legal standing, they're responsible for the fallout by way of incompetence (if not malfeasance).
You may want to support a system of blindly litigious individuals who can sue on a whim without any tangible repercussions, but I don't think you're going to rally many voices behind you portraying that as "giving the advantage to the poor"; it's more accurate to say it gives the advantage to lawyers and takes it away from everyone unable to afford a good enough attorney to defend themselves from the constant barrage of frivolous lawsuits that would result from a consequence-free system.
The only "advantage" the poor would have under that system is not having much money for people to harass them for.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
Why don't civil cases have double jeopardy apply to them?
ZackieChan
Member
It's an appeal.
Aztechnology
Member
Honestly... the families suit against the chain was ridiculous in the first place. I mean how can you possibly blame a freaking movie theater for that. It's preposterous. It seems perfectly logical what they are doing here. A tragedy happened, but that doesn't give the families a free pass to be jackasses and attempt to extort Cinemark for money.
Just came across this in the news and didn't see it mentioned here, so:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw
Are the families continuing with their suit?
BattleMonkey
Member
Distraught and looking for a payday.
SlipperyFishes
Banned
It boiled down to one plaintiff who lost her child and was paralysed in the attack. The others were willing to settle with the chain but she wouldn't.
- Status