Seems like the only person that should be on the hook is the person who rejected the settlement, but it is what it is.
How were those 37 allowed to drop from the suit and leave the rest on the hook? This is what doesn't seem right to me. In for a penny in for a pound.
How were those 37 allowed to drop from the suit and leave the rest on the hook? This is what doesn't seem right to me. In for a penny in for a pound.
People frequently exit through the emergency doors at the end of a movie, which would be a problem if they were alarmed.
I hope that Cinemark will do the right thing here and decline to actually pursue their fees and costs here.
How were those 37 allowed to drop from the suit and leave the rest on the hook? This is what doesn't seem right to me. In for a penny in for a pound.
The drop rate of police force size in the last few years because of the lower crime rate, but that was only because of the MASSIVE ramp up rate prior to that because of the bad crime rate previously. Also, PRIVATE armed security has been on a rise and still is in NYC.
Again, that still goes back to my original stipulation. The fact that most businesses in NYC don't allow CCW isn't what is contributing to the downward crime rate in NYC that has been going on since 1995. Which is what you have implied here. Most of NYC for decades before 1995 didn't allow CCW and up until that point crime was rising out of hand. It's the direct actions of putting tons of armed police all over the place, private armed security, as well as instituting policies like "stop and frisk" on top of the major violent incidents like 9/11 that have dropped crime rates in NYC. Your logic here is non-existent based on what you've implied.
So no, I will not visit any business in most places that don't allow CCW unless there is armed security already close at hand.
Umm... don't you think that these people have suffered enough already? You're calling it greed, but many of the victims are now permanently disabled and have incurred actual and ongoing medical expenses that compensation fund (created through donations) has barely touched.I disagree that Cinemark should just suck it up and pay for these peoples greed. Their lawsuit never had a chance in hell as Cinemark was not responsible in any way.
None should be allowed to drop out freely. All should be responsible for the 700K.
Umm... don't you think that these people have suffered enough already? You're calling it greed, but many of the victims are now permanently disabled and have incurred actual and ongoing medical expenses that compensation fund (created through donations) has barely touched.
People frequently exit through the emergency doors at the end of a movie
I understand these peoples issues are sad. But to say Cinemark should pay for something they had nothing to do with is also wrong.
The 700K legal bill wouldn't have existed without the law suit that had no chance. It was driven by greed of the lawyers and the people that wanted a piece of the action.
Why do you think the theater should pay?
Cinemark chose to incur these costs
No, but the cost of their defense was largely within their control, and they did out spend the plaintiffs by a wide margin.Sorry, how did they "chose to incur these costs"? Are you saying that they shouldn't have tried to defend themselves?
No, that is also false. Numbers of police had already begun to decline before 9/11 and continued to decline sharply afterwards, directly contrary to what you said.
From the article:
In addition, the number of police in NYC as of 1990 was about 31,200 for a population of about 7.3 million.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pdlc00.pdf
Current NYC number of police is 34,500 for a population of about 8.5 million. That means while the population has grown 16.4% since then the number of police has grown about 10.5%, meaning there are actually fewer police on the streets today per resident than there were in 1990. Again, all of this directly contradicts what you claimed. Just man up and admit you were wrong already.
I most certainly did not imply that a lack of CCW permits caused the decline in crime, I said that despite effectively disallowing them NYC was one of the safest cities in the US, meaning your decision to avoid places that do not allowed concealed carry is irrational. And for the second time there were FEWER cops all over the place after 9/11, stop and frisk has not been shown to lower crime rates, your contention of a major rise in armed private security is based on no evidence, etc. For what it's worth, in my experience an armed guard at virtually any business in NYC except for banks is a rare sight indeed.
You're just making up bullshit to avoid admitting you were wrong. If this is going to be another one of those 'civil prosecutor' things where you will never admit being wrong despite all the evidence staring you in the face just say so now and I'll stop trying.
Sorry to hear you're going to miss out on so many great places due to an irrational fear.
Ah, ever the shill.
Do you not see the massive spike of police hiring up past 1995 when the violent crime rate started to finally decline? Violent crime was on an up swing. Massive police hiring ensued. Once crime went down, police hiring went down some. Which is expected.
The other reason for the decrease of police force is the continued increase of private security officers hired everywhere in NYC.
That and the massive change in public sentiment over major violent incidents as talked about in those articles I linked literally changed the criminal element.
Add to the fact that NYC is the only city that has a "stop and frisk" policy by police and there are several reasons, all of which I already said and proven to you, as to why NYC is "safer" now than before.
The most recent and sophisticated studies call into question whether SQF makes sense from a policy standpoint given that it is very difficult to connect the strategy to any crime reduction, let alone reductions that are significant.
As I said before, it took a massive upswing in police forces, private security forces, change in public attitudes from major violent events, and very controversial policing policy changes to bring about the decline in violent crime rate in NYC. It doesn't matter that there has been a slight downward trend in recent years of the size of the police force in NYC. It was built up massively over the decades prior to that to handle an out of control spiraling crime problem.
It is also still a fact that NYC has the largest police force in the country for any city. Largest amount of private security forces as well. Which all leads to the fact that if a violent crime does happen in NYC now there is a faster armed response than in most other places in the country. That is a major deterrent to violent crime.
Yes, it would have made a difference - it would have had to be closed to get the alarm to turn off. Don't forget, that's how he made his entrance with the weapons. (I think)
The presence of additional guns in a smoke filled (possible tear gas filled) loud, dark, crowded, panicked place would have likely increased the death toll, not reduced it.
All that aside, I sincerely hope the theater does the right thing and does not pursue fees here.
Your idea that you will only go places where there are armed people remains as irrational as ever. Now I've asked you to substantiate your arguments with something other than made up shit, so you've got some work to do. If you just repeat your already disproven crap again I won't respond.
I understand these peoples issues are sad. But to say Cinemark should pay for something they had nothing to do with is also wrong.
The 700K legal bill wouldn't have existed without the law suit that had no chance. It was driven by greed of the lawyers and the people that wanted a piece of the action.
Why do you think the theater should pay?
Good point, but legally, I don't think that allowing concealed carry is necessarily a defense against a mass murderer. Therefore it would be hard to make the case that by allowing concealed carry, the theater would necessarily have prevented the shooting. Even assuming that someone had been carrying, and was willing to fight back before his own life was threatened, effective defense would probably be very different. The mass murderer has everyone as his target, whereas the CCW holder has to pick out only the gunman AND make sure he isn't accidentally shooting an undercover cop.iirc, most of the theaters in that area had anti-CCW laws that prevent customers from defending themselves. That kinda makes it the responsibility of the theater when shit hits the fan, just as it's the responsibility of an airline if they lose my luggage while they take control of and transport it.
The purpose of those alarms is to keep you from sneaking people in without paying, not to keep you from re-entering with guns. That said, such an alarm probably would have served that purpose; an auditorium full of people who paid to see a movie would almost certainly close the door with the alarm blaring, so unless he left a bag right next to the door, he would have been locked out before he could get back in.Maybe I misunderstood some details from the beginning, but I'm stunned the back doors of the theater that were used weren't armed with those alarms and a sign that says, "emergency use only. Alarm will sound if door is opened."
No, it has nothing to do with codes. It's a pure theft control measure. To have any security function would require a remote alarm with a camera feed, so that the theater management could see if it was kids sneaking in their friends or crazed gunmen, kidnappers, etc. and respond appropriately.Was the theater in violation any type of fire/zoning code for not having alarms on doors?
If he's carrying, then he always knows there is someone armed.Jesus that must require an enormous effort on his part. What happens if he fucks up and ends up in a location where there are no armed people? In that vein, how does he check that people have guns? What percentage of them must be packing heat for him to feel safe?
I don't know why it should matter to him anyways. After all he is the guy who can shoot a dime pattern with a hand gun at 100 yards (making him the most accurate marksman in human history). Given that prodigious talent with a gun, he certainly doesn't need other people with guns to feel safe.
They also shoot the buttons off of spray paint cans, at anything from 40 to a hundred feet. I can't SEE the buttons on spray paint cans at 40 feet. And I have witnessed a five-shot pattern of about half an inch from maybe twenty-five or thirty yards with a 6" barrel .357 mag revolver, and about the same with a .44 mag Blackhawk. My index finger wouldn't go past the first joint into either, and I'm not exactly Edward Bananahands. Some people who shoot a lot and have natural talent and good technique can do some very impressive shooting with handguns.
You said there was a huge increase in cops after 9/11. This is obviously false. Admit it.
Crime also continued to decline after the number of police declined, making your connection questionable at best.
fskimospy said:All of New York City is basically a no CCW zone and yet it's one of the safest cities in the country
My handgun had a 2" inch barrel, a 6" inch barrel is cheating. That is friggin huge.
WOW someone can't read. I did not say that at all. I said several major incidents like 9/11 changed public scrutiny in relation to violent crime including the criminals. I said because of a massive police force and a build up to the LARGEST police force in the nation is another contributing factor. Never once did I say that it all happened after 9/11. I haven't edited that post. Your assumption is your own stupidity showing.
So there is now a crap ton more police, and armed posted security all over NYC compared to before 9/11.
As far as the rest of my statements, they are all covered in those two links. But since you've proven to have a reading comprehension problem, being a shill and all, I doubt you have the ability to find that out. Nor do I feel compelled to help out a shill.
Point is that NYC is considered safe because of a large police force, large amount of privately armed security forces, crazy policing policy changes, and big changes of public perception because of major incidents. ALL of which is talked about in those two links I posted.
However, your post below is basically trying to imply that NYC is safe only because all the businesses don't allow CCW. Now THAT is total bullshit and you know it.
Wow, you certainly like to keep being stupid. I said I could shoot a quarter size target with my handgun up to 50 feet pretty consistently with optimal conditions. That is not an over the top statement as you keep thinking it is.
Which grouping of bullets hit where before the vehicle was moving? Hitting a moving target and doing so from across the card and while sitting down while under stress is going to change accuracy of the shot quit a bit. You know noting of guns if you do not know how accuracy falls off dramatically for a shooter not accustomed to it. I shoot at a range and can nail a quarter size area with my small caliber sig p238 at 50 yards. Not many can do that. I can't say I could hit much better under Dunn's situation as I've seen what happens to people with "good" range accuracy are forced to fire in a off the cuff situation.
We were both wrong. Here is what you actually said. You are friggin high if you expect us to believe that you can hit quarters at 50 yards. Especially considering your new 50' statement above. There is a huge difference between 50 ft and 50 yards.
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/teenager-shot-dead-after-playing-loud-music.2285984/page-121#post-36054010
No, this is what you said:
That is a false statement. It is frankly pathetic that you can't admit it even when confronted with irrefutable proof.
fskimospy said:Nope, they sure aren't. You got busted yet again trying to talk about something you don't know anything about. I'm still waiting to hear from you where I can go meet all these hoards of private armed security, btw.
...Many private police forces also operate in New York City....
No, it's saying that it's safe despite having a no CCW policy, directly contradicting what you previously claimed. What I said is very clear and it's ironic that you would be complaining about someone else having reading comprehension issues when you're unable to parse a simple sentence.
Feel free to have the last word as you're pulling the classic Humblepie thing where you will endlessly flail even in the face of evidence or expertise to the contrary.
Based on what I read here, most of those people dont give a shit about a safer community, they wanted cash in the bank. Kinda disgusting.