Thoughts on the Colorado shootings
Truth About Guns shows a sign the theater posted, "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED". For some reason, the shooter didn't follow that. The Washington Times notes that there was an early attempted mass shooting in the city, which ended when someone shot back.
And Don Kates sends an email: "it turns out that Century 16 Theaters no-gun policy also applies to its own security personnel, including the off-duty policy officer on the premises.
UPDATE: link fixed, thanks!
Hence, the reality here is that CO concealed carry laws were irrelevant since there was zero firearms-backed security in the theaters, no one could have a gun on the premises, and the area, like Columbine, was a completely open and non-defended free-fire zone for any assailant. The law-abiding followed the rules."
Your second hyperlink is broken, it has a dash in the href tag instead of an equals sign.
Click my name for the fixed link.
Posted by: ARL at July 21, 2012 09:34 PM
I do not even know the way I ended up here, however I believed this submit used to be good.
I do not know who you're however definitely you are going to a famous blogger for those who are not already. Cheers!
Posted by: NFL Tickets at July 22, 2012 12:24 AM
My face book post.
Interesting an unemployed college student buys between 10-20 K of equipment --when caught tells police that he has bobby trapped his apt-- after spending time energy and money setting it up..Thenit turns out he is let in the emergency exit ...by an unknown accomplice. Nope nothing unusual about that. Probably just another lone wolf.-- then if you consider these facts and suggest there may be more to this story than a lone wolf acting out some morbid inner emotions then you are a conspiracy theorist.
Witness: Someone let gunman inside Colorado movie theater
Then somehow the theater is now liable and there is a suggestion that we give up our privacy rights and be subject to more searches now by just going to a movie theater. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/20/tagblogsfindlawcom2012-injured-idUS387141306620120720
My god what is happening in the country..
Posted by: David McCleary at July 22, 2012 06:26 AM
David McCleary: this shooter was methodical enough that he very likely could have been that person who "let [the] gunman inside".
The article is entirely consistent with the shooter faking receiving a phone call, leaving through that exit while propping the door open a bit, donning his gear and then coming in when he heard a scene with a lot of gunfire around 20 minutes later.
Posted by: Harold at July 22, 2012 10:00 AM
Harold possible but not likely. A friend of mine that use to work at a movie theater many years ago informed me that the exits were well guarded when he worked in one so that people could not enter and see the movie for free. I rather doubt that the exit would have been unmonitored for 20 minutes give this information.But what do I know.
I think the better point is that it was a gun free zone and people were not allowed to defend themselves or at least make an attempt to do so.
Posted by: David McCleary at July 22, 2012 10:53 AM
Most states need a law, that says property owners who don't allow firearms are liable for any injuries caused by it.
Posted by: Joel Stoner at July 22, 2012 06:54 PM
I am not a Colorado lawyer. That said Colorado premises liability law apparently provides that "Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (II) of this paragraph (c), an invitee may recover for damages caused by the landowner's unreasonable failure to exercise reasonable care to protect against dangers of which he actually knew or should have known." C.R.S. 13-21-115(3)(c)(I).
I was unable to find any cases in Colorado or elsewhere alleging premises liability upon a landowner for failing to protect patrons it has chosen to disarm. If successful, such a suit could be a strong incentive for businesses to refrain from posting No Firearms signs.
Posted by: John at July 22, 2012 07:07 PM
...Indeed John, but that law could garner liability for a business owner who allowed ccw folks on his property and they had an A.D. or a bad shooting. That's why there are tort lawyers.
..3 years ago I was in Phoenix and carrying. I walked downtown to a Hooters to eat and was reading the "no firearms" sign at the door when an employee, walking out, invited me in. So, I went, ate and left. I carried 32 years offduty and never was 'made' , so I figured I'd not be caught. I wasn't. I think I'd have handled the theatre the same way.
Posted by: Dave D. at July 22, 2012 07:44 PM
Seems to me that if a "private property" entity refuses to allow me to protect myself by having my legal handgun concealed on my person on THEIR PROPERTY, then they assume the responsibility for MY SAFETY! Texas law specifically exempts businesses that allow concealed carry holders ontheir property. Don't know about Colorado. I hope that every person in that theater gets a lawyer and sues Cinemark.
Posted by: Fiftycal at July 23, 2012 04:52 PM
While we don't know if an armed CCW holder in the theater might have lessened the tragedy, we DO know that the "No Guns" signs had absolutely no effect.
Posted by: Peter at July 24, 2012 09:28 AM
I've had to sit out any discussions because I know people in Aurora. Thankfully, they weren't there.
I did have a conversation with a friend in Iceland where you're welcome to your guns, but anytime someone purchases a huge amount of ammo in a short period of time like that, gun stores have to report it so that police can just make sure the person doesn't have harmful intents. As a result, Iceland hasn't had a gun-related homicide in ages. I wonder how hard it would be to put something like that into effect here.
Posted by: Sarah at July 26, 2012 07:58 AM