• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Dark Knight Rises massacre survivor sues everyone he possibly can

Started by fantastic_four,

72 posts in this topic

nearmint

nearmint

Posted
Posted
Suing the Theatre, not so much imo. They were arguably negligent in allowing him to use the emergency exit to go out and retrieve his weapons and then come back in for the shootings.

 

Are you sure that's what happened? I could be wrong, but I haven't heard any reports that he was in the theater and left to get his weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jools&jim

jools&jim

Posted
Posted
Are you sure that's what happened? I could be wrong, but I haven't heard any reports that he was in the theater and left to get his weapons.

 

According to ABC News, Holmes bought a ticket to the movie and went into the theater as part of the crowd. After the movie started, he left through an emergency exit and propped open the door. Then, he donned riot gear and re-entered the theater, tossed two gas canisters and began shooting into the crowd at about 12:38 a.m. MT

 

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/world_news&id=8743134

 

That report is a few days old, so it might not be 100% accurate...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Suing the Theatre, not so much imo. They were arguably negligent in allowing him to use the emergency exit to go out and retrieve his weapons and then come back in for the shootings.

 

Are you sure that's what happened? I could be wrong, but I haven't heard any reports that he was in the theater and left to get his weapons.

 

The current version of the Wikipedia description of the event does say he left the theater through the emergency exit, went to his car parked near the exit to get the guns, and came back in through the exit. The description references a few articles to back up those facts.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shadroch

shadroch

Posted
Posted
Suing the Theatre, not so much imo. They were arguably negligent in allowing him to use the emergency exit to go out and retrieve his weapons and then come back in for the shootings.

 

Are you sure that's what happened? I could be wrong, but I haven't heard any reports that he was in the theater and left to get his weapons.

 

 

So he entered the movie carrying four long guns, and hundreds of rounds of ammo? If that were the case, the place is even more liable, although the story I heard is that he left thru an emergancy door which he propped open, then returned with the guns and started shooting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted

I can't understand how a theatre is possible for some guy smuggling in guns.

 

I hope to god this guy doesn't win his law suit.

 

Just another step towards removing personal accountability if he does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bluechip

bluechip

Posted
Posted
He's suing Warner Brothers, the theater, and the doctors who prescribed Vicodin to James Holmes...because, of course, someone has to be responsible for all of this aside from Holmes himself since he has no deep pockets to pick. :facepalm::eyeroll:

 

http://www.christianpost.com/news/james-holmes-lawsuit-man-blames-theater-doctors-and-warner-bros-for-shootings-78760/

 

Is he suing the guys who repealed the bans on assault weapoins (one of which he had), multi-magazine clips (which he had), and who actually made it illegal for some law enforcement (including homeland security) agencies to red flag people based based on short-term purchases of multiple guns and excessive amounts of ammo (he bought several guns and 6000 rounds of ammo in less than a few months)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nearmint

nearmint

Posted
Posted
Suing the Theatre, not so much imo. They were arguably negligent in allowing him to use the emergency exit to go out and retrieve his weapons and then come back in for the shootings.

 

Are you sure that's what happened? I could be wrong, but I haven't heard any reports that he was in the theater and left to get his weapons.

 

The current version of the Wikipedia description of the event does say he left the theater through the emergency exit, went to his car parked near the exit to get the guns, and came back in through the exit. The description references a few articles to back up those facts.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting

 

Wow. To me, it makes what he did even harder to believe. He spent time with those people, both in line and in the theater, before going out to get his weapons. He probably saw that 6 month old baby, the 6-year-old girl, the pregnant woman who gave birth after the shooting, and still carried out his plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shadroch

shadroch

Posted
Posted

As someone who is friends with many survivors of the World Trade Center, I imagine a good percentage of the movie goers are going to need counseling for a long, long time. Even emerging unscathed from an event like this is a life-changing event. Its ten years, and some have realk difficulty working, or even going out in public.

A second cousin of mine switched shifts with a fellow FDNY member so he could extend his vacation an extra week. The guy working his shift died, and my cousin has never been close to the same. Survivors guilt can be just as harmful as a real bullet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I can't understand how a theatre is possible for some guy smuggling in guns.

 

The law would have to specify that the theater has to lock emergency exits from the outside. I can't say there aren't such laws, but I don't know why they would mandate such a thing. I figured stores keep those locked for their own purposes--to keep people from stealing their products--but perhaps I'm wrong and there are laws about it, never really thought much about it. (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ares

Ares

Posted
Posted

Yet he does not sue the man who did the shooting.

 

I love the Warner Bros portion of the suit..

 

""Finally, Karpel is bringing charges against Warner Bros. stating that the violent actions taken by Holmes were remnant of some of the film's more graphic and violent scenes.""

 

So Holmes was recreating out portions of the movie he had not seen yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
miraclemet

miraclemet

Posted
Posted

He's suing the Theater because there was no alarm attached to the emergency exit.

Wonder if the alarm was installed but disabled/deactivated by they theater, or if the alarm is not required by code.

 

If the alarm was there it would have been alarming/blaring until the door closed, which would mean he couldn't get back in through that door.

If he had left it propped (and the alarm kept going off) while he donned riot gear and got his guns you'd think either a) someone in the theater would have pulled the door shut or b) someone would have gone and told mgmt/ushers about the alarm and they would have re-secured the door.

 

would it have changed things? who knows. This guy was determined to do something like this, so it was going to happen in some way, maybe he would have just gone back in through the front door wearing a trench coat to hide his gear/guns...

 

wouldnt have stopped crazy from happening though.

 

Trying to place blame is in part trying to rationalize these acts, and sometimes there is no blame to place (at least in terms of legal blame) beyond the person who actually did the terrible act itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
burntboy

burntboy

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure (in the absence of metal detectors and trained professional guards, such as are in use at airports and court houses) how places like Arenas, Stadiums, Malls, Churches, Restaurants, Museums, Theaters, etc., can ever guarantee the Publics safety.

 

I find it hard to hold the theater responsible and the prescribing doctor and Warner bros inclusion, doesn't even deserve comment.

 

Interesting that an individual who wasn't even injured becomes the first person to seek restitution. Also interesting that despite the grave emotional shock, he was able to recover so quickly as to be the first to sue. (I suspect the lawyer (Mr Karpel) may either be looking to get his name in the Media or is simply trying to line up folks for a big cash grab...

 

It's a shame what folks will do nowadays...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
miraclemet

miraclemet

Posted
Posted

and the fact that the article refers to his "alleged best friend" victim sounds like even the writer is suspect of the validity of the claims.

 

"According to Brown's attorney, people in the theater were taken even more off guard by the shooting because they initially believed that the stunt was part of the film"

 

yeah cause that happens all the time when I go to movies, theaters are always pulling stunts like that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nearmint

nearmint

Posted
Posted

It did occur to me at Comic-Con in San Diego that if someone wanted to get a gun into the convention hall, it would be incredibly easy. And the crowds are so thick in there, if a gunman opened fire, the number of people trampled to death would be horrific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shadroch

shadroch

Posted
Posted
He's suing the Theater because there was no alarm attached to the emergency exit.

Wonder if the alarm was installed but disabled/deactivated by they theater, or if the alarm is not required by code.

 

If the alarm was there it would have been alarming/blaring until the door closed, which would mean he couldn't get back in through that door.

If he had left it propped (and the alarm kept going off) while he donned riot gear and got his guns you'd think either a) someone in the theater would have pulled the door shut or b) someone would have gone and told mgmt/ushers about the alarm and they would have re-secured the door.

 

would it have changed things? who knows. This guy was determined to do something like this, so it was going to happen in some way, maybe he would have just gone back in through the front door wearing a trench coat to hide his gear/guns...

 

wouldnt have stopped crazy from happening though.

 

Trying to place blame is in part trying to rationalize these acts, and sometimes there is no blame to place (at least in terms of legal blame) beyond the person who actually did the terrible act itself.

 

You can't stop crazy, but you can slow it down. As bad as this scene was, imagine if his gun with its 100 round drum of ammo hadn't jammed. What kind of hunting is that drum designed for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shrunkenhead

shrunkenhead

Posted
Posted

That seems like a pretty crazy lawsuit. Unwinnable. You may as well also sue the mother for giving birth to Holmes, the father for impregnating the mom, the Earth for giving the three of them a place to live, oxygen and water for sustaining them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
arexcrooke

arexcrooke

Posted
Posted
He's suing the Theater because there was no alarm attached to the emergency exit.

Wonder if the alarm was installed but disabled/deactivated by they theater, or if the alarm is not required by code.

 

If the alarm was there it would have been alarming/blaring until the door closed, which would mean he couldn't get back in through that door.

If he had left it propped (and the alarm kept going off) while he donned riot gear and got his guns you'd think either a) someone in the theater would have pulled the door shut or b) someone would have gone and told mgmt/ushers about the alarm and they would have re-secured the door.

 

would it have changed things? who knows. This guy was determined to do something like this, so it was going to happen in some way, maybe he would have just gone back in through the front door wearing a trench coat to hide his gear/guns...

 

wouldnt have stopped crazy from happening though.

 

Trying to place blame is in part trying to rationalize these acts, and sometimes there is no blame to place (at least in terms of legal blame) beyond the person who actually did the terrible act itself.

 

You can't stop crazy, but you can slow it down. As bad as this scene was, imagine if his gun with its 100 round drum of ammo hadn't jammed. What kind of hunting is that drum designed for?

Which begs to ask the question about where is the balance point for gun control laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing