Cinemark wins lawsuit against Aurora Shooter victims!!

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Dr Kain, Sep 1, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dr Kain

    Dr Kain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Posts:
    29,560
    Trophy Points:
    412
    Likes:
    +9,053
    Ebay:
    Facebook:
    Twitter:
    Instagram:
    YouTube:
  2. flamepanther

    flamepanther Interested, but not really

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Posts:
    15,813
    Trophy Points:
    387
    Likes:
    +6,482
    Eh, I dunno. On the one hand, "the optics are bad" and this will cost Cinemark more in bad PR than they're every going to get out of this, and the magnanimous thing to do would be to let it go. On the other hand, suing Cinemark for a bunch of money over a shooting they had nothing to do with was stupid, wasteful, and potentially quite greedy, and Cinemark is technically in the right to ask for compensation--which would be the actual reason they keep winning.
     
  3. SHINOBI03

    SHINOBI03 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Posts:
    12,681
    Trophy Points:
    277
    Likes:
    +8,649
    I have... no words! What kind of sick era are we living in that the victims are asked to pay for damage that they're not responsible to?
     
  4. flamepanther

    flamepanther Interested, but not really

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Posts:
    15,813
    Trophy Points:
    387
    Likes:
    +6,482
    Read up on the story. They're not being sued over damages from the shooting. The same group of victims previously sued Cinemark, claiming that Cinemark was responsible for letting the shooting happen (they weren't). These people aren't responsible for the shooting, but they are responsible for suing an innocent party and costing them a lot of money. Now Cinemark is asking for their legal costs back.
     
  5. Fallout

    Fallout Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Posts:
    19,104
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    302
    Likes:
    +18,259
    Instagram:
    what a clickbait title. yeesh.
     
  6. flamepanther

    flamepanther Interested, but not really

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Posts:
    15,813
    Trophy Points:
    387
    Likes:
    +6,482
    Daily News is a tabloid paper that's been around for generations. Their headlines are basically the prototype that inspired clickbait.
     
  7. NemiMonkey

    NemiMonkey Whippin Dem Fungals

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2012
    Posts:
    9,647
    News Credits:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    242
    Location:
    NY
    Likes:
    +5,382
    NY Daily News huh. Well that's all I need to know.
     
  8. lars573

    lars573 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Posts:
    8,332
    Trophy Points:
    287
    Likes:
    +676
    It wasn't just blaming the theatre chain it was also about forcing them to implement better security. It's probably why they lost. And if you lose you have to pay court costs.
     
  9. edgs2099

    edgs2099 Optimistically realistic. Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Posts:
    9,678
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    317
    Location:
    Tom Bombadil's house
    Likes:
    +5,775
    I fully agree with this judgement, but I'd like to see Cinemark put out a statement saying, we were in the right, and we won the judgement. We are not responsible for the shooting. James Holmes was. We also don't want or need the money, so the amount won will be donated to the victims fund/Treatment Advocacy Center/National Gunshot Wound Center.
     
  10. boxorak

    boxorak Lovable Noob

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2010
    Posts:
    6,736
    Trophy Points:
    267
    Likes:
    +196
    That's all I need to read. Ignoring now.
     
  11. Dr Kain

    Dr Kain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Posts:
    29,560
    Trophy Points:
    412
    Likes:
    +9,053
    Ebay:
    Facebook:
    Twitter:
    Instagram:
    YouTube:
    Yes, but it is the principle of the matter. Cinemark should have just let it go, eaten the costs, and moved on. Instead, they decided to respond in a childish manner and sue the victims of the families as if they didn't have enough on their shoulders.

    Cinemark deserves to burn in Hell for it.
     
  12. Dr Kain

    Dr Kain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Posts:
    29,560
    Trophy Points:
    412
    Likes:
    +9,053
    Ebay:
    Facebook:
    Twitter:
    Instagram:
    YouTube:
    Fine, for the entitled who seem to think once source is less valid than the other, here you go:

    Aurora massacre survivors sued. How did 4 end up owing the theater $700,000? - LA Times

    I don't see why it matters when Cinemark has decided to be brats and sue the victims who sued them. "Yeah, we're sorry your family member died, but you wanted money from us, so we expect you to pay us money in return."
     
  13. Tracer

    Tracer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Posts:
    209
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Likes:
    +2,473
    While I do agree with it not being the theaters fault. This is right up there with Jesse Ventura suing Chris Kyle's widow. Sometimes its just better to let it go.
     
  14. flamepanther

    flamepanther Interested, but not really

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Posts:
    15,813
    Trophy Points:
    387
    Likes:
    +6,482
    Cinemark could say exactly the same thing.
    Sure, after the families decided to respond to their loved ones' deaths or injuries by using them to milk money out of people that weren't responsible. If that particular subset of the victims is going to be cynical and opportunistic, then I don't see how they get to retain any sort of moral high ground here when Cinemark responds without any sentimentality of their own. Losing a loved one is terrible, but it's not a free pass to just do whatever.
    I'd say that's a bit... extreme.
     
  15. MetalicGrunt

    MetalicGrunt Rust Proof Commando

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    Posts:
    11,425
    News Credits:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    277
    Location:
    Derry, NH
    Likes:
    +2,348
    How about they protect themselves as a corporation and take action now, so every little event that happens on their property doesn't turn into a lawsuit down the road. Those suing knew if they lost, they would be required to pay legal fees. Isn't not some secret regulation in the law books, you sue and loose, your on the hook for legal fees. They also won't donate money because if they do it appears as if they feel remorse, which legally can be used against them in potential future court cases.
     
  16. Rodimus74

    Rodimus74 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Posts:
    7,426
    Trophy Points:
    242
    Likes:
    +3,343
    It wasn't the theaters fault. And given the scope of the tragedy the victims most likely thought they had the case in the bag. They were even offered a settlement which the judge told them they should take. But apparently the victims thought it was an insulting offer. But it is really shitty of Cinemark to ask for the money when they don't need it and I do hope it bites them in the ass.
     
  17. RustyBarnacles

    RustyBarnacles Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2012
    Posts:
    7,261
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    282
    Likes:
    +1,186
    I don't see in the article where Cinemark sued. Only the people who chose to sue Cinemark. Cinemark offered a small settlement that all plaintiffs, but one, agreed on knowing they were going to lose and be forced to pay the $700k in court fees in accordance with Colorado law. Since there was one plaintiff who chose to hold out, they lost, and now in accordance with the law, have to pay the legal fees.

    Cinemark was not responsible for the shooting. Just the same if someone shoots up a convenience store, it's not the store chain's fault or the chain owner. Someone gots shot on the streets of LA, it's not the city or state's fault. The one held accountable for it is the one that did the shooting.
     
  18. MetalicGrunt

    MetalicGrunt Rust Proof Commando

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    Posts:
    11,425
    News Credits:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    277
    Location:
    Derry, NH
    Likes:
    +2,348
    Also Cinemark didn't sue the victims for legal fees. Cinemark filled a legal motion to recoup legal fees in the overall lawsuit.
     
  19. edgs2099

    edgs2099 Optimistically realistic. Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Posts:
    9,678
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    317
    Location:
    Tom Bombadil's house
    Likes:
    +5,775
    Honestly, I don't give enough of a shit about this corporation, or any really to actually care what they do or don't do. What I stated above was to merely curtail the "You monsters tooked the money for the dead people" press they are getting now and will continue to get. What you said is correct though. It'd just be nice to see them act a bit like part of the community as opposed to a faceless corporation that people love to hate.
     
  20. Incepticon

    Incepticon |-+-|

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Posts:
    17,000
    News Credits:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    337
    Likes:
    +11,519
    Yeah, "victims" or not, the bottom line is that this lawsuit was ridiculous and nothing more than an attempted cash grab, and it deserved to be lost. Because what's next? Suing the town that the theater was in because the theater was in the town? Suing the state that the town was in that had the theater because the theater was in the town that was in the state? And on and on and on... It's absurd.

    Add to that, there are these little facts that people are conveniently omitting for sake of having a knee-jerk reaction: 1) the families actually WERE offered a settlement (which Cinemark did NOT have to do at all), but they declined it and chose to keep moving forward seeking even more money despite knowing full well that if they lost, they'd have to cough up the legal fees. And 2) Because of that, all except 4 families dropped out of the lawsuit after were advised to get out before that happened.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.