Uninjured man first in line for Batman shooting lawsuit

[Vinyl Turnip]

Torrence Brown, Jr., who was in the theater during the shooting but escaped uninjured (while his friend was shot and killed), is suing Holmes' doctor, the theater, and Warner Brothers because he was emotionally traumatized and they're all apparently at fault somehow.

Assuming this article is correct, Jesus Christ, what a fucking tool. Please tell me there's no chance this douchebag sees a dime from this.

[Maastricht]

Did anyone sue the school after the Columbine shootings?

[Typo Negative]

"Somebody has to be responsible for the rampant violence that is shown today," Karpel said according to TMZ.

Yes. The one responsible is the public that eats it up with a spoon. He should sue, as a representative of said people, one Torrence Brown, Jr.

If people like him didn't keep plunking the money down, WB would do someone else.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

What a tool. Talk about being insensitive to the victims and their families!

I do agree with one thing though: the emergency exit door should be equipped with a loud alarm. According to the article, they are claiming it wasn't.

IIRC Holmes propped open the emergency exit door from the inside after buying a ticket in order to let himself back in later is that correct? I'm pretty sure those kinds of doors are always locked from the outside. Had the door had an alarm, somebody would have shut that door after noticing it was propped open before Holmes could re-enter. Unless the alarm was disabled by the shooter.

[BubbaDog]

I can't hate this guy.

If somebody came into a theater and shot up the place and I watched my best friend take one in the chest and die I might also be inclined to be pissed off at a number of people or institutions for what I believe was their failures.

From his point of view -
He went to enjoy toy time.
He had some reasonable expectation of security.
The theater's security features were easily bypassed.
The program itself had elements of surprise and violence in it so witnesses were first somewhat confused as to exactly what they were seeing.
His best buddy was brutally murdered and he witnessed it.

I don't think that the guy is a scumbag opportunist. I just think his rage may be unfocused and a little out of control.

[BubbaDog]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

What a tool. Talk about being insensitive to the victims and their families! [snip]

How do you not include this guy as a victim?

[Miller]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

I do agree with one thing though: the emergency exit door should be equipped with a loud alarm. According to the article, they are claiming it wasn't.

IIRC Holmes propped open the emergency exit door from the inside after buying a ticket in order to let himself back in later is that correct? I'm pretty sure those kinds of doors are always locked from the outside. Had the door had an alarm, somebody would have shut that door after noticing it was propped open before Holmes could re-enter. Unless the alarm was disabled by the shooter.

I don't know that I've ever been in a movie theater where the exits were alarmed. In most of them, the "emergency" exits are propped open by the theater staff when the credits start rolling, to encourage patrons to exit directly to the parking lot, instead of crowding up the lobby while other people are buying tickets for the next show. In other words, they're not emergency exits at all. They're just exits.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by BubbaDog

I can't hate this guy.

It's okay. You know all those times when you look back and only see one set of footprints? That's when I was hating for you.

I'm sure it was traumatic for everyone there. If you honestly don't see this as a cash-grab, though, you have a much more gentle perspective on human nature than I ever will.

[Ethilrist]

I'm trying to figure out why the lawyer isn't going for a class action suit...

[Chimera]

Originally Posted by BubbaDog

He had some reasonable expectation of security.
The theater's security features were easily bypassed.

Oh fuck this entire line of reasoning with a nail studded 2x4.

We as a society are not going to pay to post guards at every motherfucking door on the planet, nor would that necessarily have stopped him. He'd have just shot the guard.

And seriously, WTF? Who believes that back exits of theaters actually need guards or that the theater bears any responsibility because there wasn't one?

Morons, that's who.

[Alice The Goon]

I have all the sympathy and empathy in the world for every single person in that theater and their families, friends, neighbors, employers, ex-girlfriends' nephews' wives, etc. But to me, this looks like a case of "Wah! My mother told me I was special, and I should never feel any pain or suffer at all! Somebody pay me!" Tragedies happen. You shouldn't get rich just because you were present.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by BubbaDog

He had some reasonable expectation of security.
The theater's security features were easily bypassed.

To be honest, i don't expect that the vast majority of places that i visit in the course of a typical week will be secure against a maniac toting smoke bombs and multiple weapons.

If someone wanted to storm my YMCA and shoot people up, he could do it very easily. The local Whole Foods and Vons would be very easy targets for a gun-wielding maniac. The university where i work is easy to access, and anyone can drive onto the campus and walk around without any problem.

The fact is, we just have to hope that incidents like this remain rare, and hope also that it doesn't happen to us. There is no way to be 100% secure all the time, and if there were it would probably make life miserable anyway.

Do you really want to live in a society where you have to go through metal detectors to watch a movie?

[HansGrosse]

As someone who has gone through the grieving process multiple times and understands that everyone reacts differently to death...

I see this as a really disrespectful, selfish money-grab. Jesus fucking christ. Way to try to profit from your friend's death.

[Inner Stickler]

At this point, I'd be satisfied with a society that doesn't spell reminiscent remnant.

[billfish678]

But his friend was one Dewey Cheatem Howe.

He would have wanted it this way.

[suranyi]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

What a tool. Talk about being insensitive to the victims and their families!

I do agree with one thing though: the emergency exit door should be equipped with a loud alarm. According to the article, they are claiming it wasn't.

IIRC Holmes propped open the emergency exit door from the inside after buying a ticket in order to let himself back in later is that correct? I'm pretty sure those kinds of doors are always locked from the outside. Had the door had an alarm, somebody would have shut that door after noticing it was propped open before Holmes could re-enter. Unless the alarm was disabled by the shooter.

I disagree: There's no reason for this emergency door to be alarmed, and indeed emergency doors at theaters are rarely alarmed.

There are two reasons why emergency doors are sometimes alarmed: First, if the door would allow a shoplifter to bypass the normal exit. Second if the exit route takes the escapee through an area normally off limits to him, for example a secured area of an airport. Neither apply in this case.

The plaintiff seems to think that there's a general need to know whenever an emergency door is opened. That's not true.

[Buck Godot]

I probably hate his lawyer more than I hate him. I am imagining that the guy is actually suffering real life trauma, (as are the vast majority of the patrons that night) sought out legal representation to see if he was due any compensation. He ended up with a lawyer with dollar signs for eyes who decided to fling law suits at anyone and everyone just to see what would stick.

[Omar Little]

I would pit the opportunist attorney that likely latched onto him and saw a big settlement fee.

[olivesmarch4th]

Yeah, I think this guy is a douchenozzle. There is no way that a movie theater or Warner Bros. could reasonably anticipate an attack like that. I'm sorry if he is grieving and maybe - just maybe - this is his way of trying to control the event. But horrible shit just happens, for no reason at all, or for many reasons, and the blame really lies on no-one but the shooter.

[Carmady]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

I do agree with one thing though: the emergency exit door should be equipped with a loud alarm.

If the door said "Emergency Exit Only, Alarm Will Sound" and there was no alarm then I would agree with you.

If, on the other hand, it was simply used as another exit from the theater and there was no requirement for a dedicated "Emergency Exit Only" at all (as I believe to be the case), then I strongly disagree with you.

[Typo Negative]

I wonder what the theater's duty was from a legal standpoint. What did they have a duty to do?

I mean, since this thing has never happened in a theater before, how were they negligent in preventing it from happening the 1st time?

Surely it would be possible to have alarmed exit doors, but those may be pricey. Also, they may generate a lot of complaints from irritated moviegoers every time some moron goes through them who doesn't know or doesn't care that an alarm will sound loud enough for all to hear.

[PunditLisa]

A friend of mine lost her son and 2 of his friends when the car one of them was driving* ran a stop sign and into the path of a semi. The only surviver later sued the other 3 families for payment of his medical bills and emotional trauma.

*Two witnesses at the last bar they were at claimed it was the kid who survived who got behind the wheel. He denied being the driver despite claiming to have no memory of the accident at all. The interior of the car was so contaminated with all of their bodily fluids that forensic testing could not pinpoint who was driving. As a result, the surviver sued everyone.

Her insurance agent explained to her that he'd have done the same thing had her son surivived, and it was SOP, but it didn't make it any easier on her when she got the papers in the mail.

[Typo Negative]

Originally Posted by PunditLisa

A friend of mine lost her son and 2 of his friends when the car one of them was driving* ran a stop sign and into the path of a semi. The only surviver later sued the other 3 families for payment of his medical bills and emotional trauma.

*Two witnesses at the last bar they were at claimed it was the kid who survived who got behind the wheel. He denied being the driver despite claiming to have no memory of the accident at all. The interior of the car was so contaminated with all of their bodily fluids that forensic testing could not pinpoint who was driving. As a result, the surviver sued everyone.

Her insurance agent explained to her that he'd have done the same thing had her son surivived, and it was SOP, but it didn't make it any easier on her when she got the papers in the mail.

Does that mean if they collect an award, your friend could then sue them for it since there is evidence (2 eyewitnesses) that HE was one driving?

[Blaster Master]

That this guy wasn't injured doesn't mean he's not a victim; everyone in that theater is a victim. Hell, you even say his friend was shot and killed. His suing here is definitely overboard.

I don't know see how anyone could think that Warner Bros. could have done anything to prevent the shooting, the guy probably picked DKR simply because he knew the theater would be full and just would have picked another movie if DKR never existed.

Similarly, sure, the theater doesn't have the doors alarmed, but I've never seen alarmed doors at a theater. In the overwhelming majority of cases, as in every case except for this one, the doors are openned because people are leaving, someone is sneaking in, or there's some other reason to evacuate which would be compelling on it's own, like a fire. The last thing we need is security at a movie theater. Let's drive up ticket and concession prices even more because of one nutjob who probably would have shot up any guards anyway.

Holmes' doctor may or may not have some liability if he had reason to suspect he was unbalanced enough to do something like that and didn't do something about it, but that's extremely difficult to prove.

Either way, it's hard to be upset at him for suing people. Sure, he might be taking advantage of the situation to make a quick buck, but I can also understand him being traumatized and wanting to blame people, not really thinking it through, and his lawyer just encouraging him to file suits against everyone he could tenuously connect to it. Hell, his lawyer probably figures WB will settle anyway, as most companies of that size usually do since it's generally cheaper to just through some money at the complaint than to go to court to prove their innocence. So if you're going to be upset at anyone, pit the lawyer who is more interested in the money and either encouraged him or at least didn't do enough to discourage him from filing ridiculous suits.

[Loach]

Originally Posted by BubbaDog

I can't hate this guy.

I can.

I can see he would be traumatized. I can even see him filing a lawsuit although I don't really see the theater having any responsibility. But there is no legal reason why it had to be filed before all the bodies were buried.

[Chimera]

I hereby claim that I am traumatized by his filing suit. Any lawyers on the board want to take that case?

[BubbaDog]

Originally Posted by Chimera

Oh fuck this entire line of reasoning with a nail studded 2x4.

I like the way you trimmed my quote and tried to make it look like it was MY line of reasoning instead of my guess as to the plaintiff's state of mine.

We as a society are not going to pay to post guards at every motherfucking door on the planet, nor would that necessarily have stopped him. He'd have just shot the guard.

Congratulations. You've somehow managed to grasp the obvious.

And seriously, WTF? Who believes that back exits of theaters actually need guards or that the theater bears any responsibility because there wasn't one?

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say the guy traumatized after seeing his buddies chest explode next to him right after some gun firing shithead came through said doors.

Morons, that's who.

Congrat's again! You just called one of the Denver victims a moron. It must be so wonderful to have your enormous head and be capable of being so superior to a traumatized victim.

I don't think I disagree with many others in this thread (although I feel pretty bad about any sort of alignment with a shithead such as you). I think the plaintiff is acting way too soon. So soon that I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as to whether he's acting out of rage and anger instead of greed.

If you guys want to truss up his lawyer over pile of lumber though, I'll bring the marshmallows

[Chimera]

Originally Posted by BubbaDog

Congrat's again! You just called one of the Denver victims a moron. It must be so wonderful to have your enormous head and be capable of being so superior to a traumatized victim.

No shit? I called the guy a moron and disagreed with his (as narrated by YOU) logic? And for this you call ME a shithead and a bad guy for insulting him?

Are you really that terminally stupid? Wait, don't answer. I think I can figure that one out based on your post.

[BubbaDog]

Originally Posted by Chimera

No shit? I called the guy a moron and disagreed with his (as narrated by YOU) logic? And for this you call ME a shithead and a bad guy for insulting him?

Are you really that terminally stupid? Wait, don't answer. I think I can figure that one out based on your post.

Actually I was going by the size of your enormous forehead. Just a guess that it was full of shit.

And sorry about my stupidity. I made an assumption that the guy thought the theater bore some responsibility because, well, the guy has filed a lawsuit against the theater. I know. It's my day to use crazy logic.

[cmosdes]

Originally Posted by Carmady

If the door said "Emergency Exit Only, Alarm Will Sound" and there was no alarm then I would agree with you.

Why? As was said earlier, doors are alarmed for either security or the benefit of the proprietor. The proprietor is under no obligation to actually alarm the door if all they want to do is keep people from using it. An emergency exit exists at the requirement of the fire department. If a proprietor wants to keep people from using it as a normal exit and doesn't want to monitor it, there are ways to accomplish that. One way is to actually alarm it. Another is to warn people there is an alarm and hopefully that will keep them from misusing it. It might not be worth the time and hassle to respond to an alarm, not to mention the annoyance it might cause other customers.

If a store hangs a sign that says they will prosecute shoplifters to the full extent of the law, do you think that requires them, legally, to do so?

[Carmady]

Originally Posted by cmosdes

If a store hangs a sign that says they will prosecute shoplifters to the full extent of the law, do you think that requires them, legally, to do so?

What I said was that an exit door labeled "Emergency Exit Only, Alarm Will Sound" should, in fact, have an alarm.

For example, suppose parents lose a child in the theater. One of them goes to the interior exit to make sure the child doesn't leave, and the other starts looking around the theater itself. Since the exterior exit says it has an alarm, they don't believe the child could have left there.

So my opinion is that the "Alarm Will Sound" sign should not be used just to scare people. I make no claim about the legal requirement.

[urban1a]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

What a tool. Talk about being insensitive to the victims and their families!

I do agree with one thing though: the emergency exit door should be equipped with a loud alarm. According to the article, they are claiming it wasn't.

IIRC Holmes propped open the emergency exit door from the inside after buying a ticket in order to let himself back in later is that correct? I'm pretty sure those kinds of doors are always locked from the outside. Had the door had an alarm, somebody would have shut that door after noticing it was propped open before Holmes could re-enter. Unless the alarm was disabled by the shooter.

I've been to that theater and the exits are marked as that; 'Exit'. Going out of those doors leads to the parking lots and you avoid the crowd shoving through the lobby (although you miss the bathrooms that way).

Bob

[PlainJain]

I love this quote from the linked article:

"A.J. Boik, Brown's alleged best friend..."

[Enkel]

I'm with the folks who say this sounds like an attorney trying to cash in. I believe the attorney filed the suit because the attorney wanted to get himself into a position of representing the victim before WB reached out to them with an offer. Now, the attorney will get a cut of what ever goes down, be it an offer from WB or a class action suit.

[IntelliQ]

I hope the judge who gets this case rips the lawyer a new bunghole.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by urban1a

I've been to that theater and the exits are marked as that; 'Exit'. Going out of those doors leads to the parking lots and you avoid the crowd shoving through the lobby (although you miss the bathrooms that way).

Bob

Ah. I guess I've been going to the same theater for so long that I assumed most were like mine. Nobody exits the theater from the emergency exit doors, which is how ours are labelled. Everyone goes down the side staircases and out the main entrance doors to the theater and out into the parking lot through the lobby.

So...I retract what I said about the exit doors, which are, in fact, just regular exit doors.

[ralph124c]

I'm thinking of filing a lawsuit..I'm so traumatized, I can't bring myself to open my BATMAN comic book!
Are there any class action lawsuits underway?

[Cicero]

I hope he is sentenced to watching Bambi and the Sound of Music for the rest of his life.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by suranyi

The plaintiff seems to think that there's a general need to know whenever an emergency door is opened. That's not true.

When it's directly in the theater, there is. All it takes is for you to prop the door open, and then you can let in several friends. It's the same shoplifting idea.

Also, I can't remember ever seeing an emergency exit without an alarm. You've just left because of an emergency. You need to warn everyone. These things exist to get out of the building during a fire or similar, not because you need get out to the parking lot a little quicker.

You guys are making me feel dirty for having to side with the guy. But, if this is the way people think, then, yes, someone needs to sue. Even if he doesn't win, maybe they'll rethink the stupidity of having easy direct access into a freaking theater.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by BigT

When it's directly in the theater, there is. All it takes is for you to prop the door open, and then you can let in several friends. It's the same shoplifting idea.

Also, I can't remember ever seeing an emergency exit without an alarm. You've just left because of an emergency. You need to warn everyone. These things exist to get out of the building during a fire or similar, not because you need get out to the parking lot a little quicker.

You guys are making me feel dirty for having to side with the guy. But, if this is the way people think, then, yes, someone needs to sue. Even if he doesn't win, maybe they'll rethink the stupidity of having easy direct access into a freaking theater.

Except its been pointed out a few times now that those weren't emergency doors...they were normal exit doors that people would regularly use to exit the movie theater.

[Loach]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

Except its been pointed out a few times now that those weren't emergency doors...they were normal exit doors that people would regularly use to exit the movie theater.

Even if they were, movie theaters don't have gunman proof doors.

[billfish678]

I think the lawyer should be going after Clairol because it is obvious to me that dyeing his hair orange is what finally sent him over the edge.

[Morgenstern]

Did the theater have an obligation to provide a safe environment for the viewing audience?
Did the theater breach that obligation?
Was the plaintiff damaged by the defendants breach of that obligation?


There's grounds for the Lawsuit.


During the course of the lawsuit you can examine whether the events of that early morning were reasonably foreseeable, and the extent and costs of providing those preventive measures would have been likely to prevent the harm the plaintiff suffered.

Will this defendant recover? Was the theater obligated to provide a safe environment? Damn right on both accounts. He might well recover, the amount will depending on how well his attorney proves damages, and the degree to which the theater is found negligent.

Same applies to his doctor, and Warner Brothers. This assumes Colorado law doesn't prohibit suing any of these entities.

[olivesmarch4th]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

Will this defendant recover? Was the theater obligated to provide a safe environment? Damn right on both accounts.

Really? The theater was obligated to provide protection from gun-wielding maniacs? What part of, ''we live in a random, fucked up, arbitrarily horrible world'' do people not understand? There is no guarantee of safety anywhere, ever.

[Patty O'Furniture]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

Did the theater have an obligation to provide a safe environment for the viewing audience?

Safe from what? If a meteor hits and kills my friend, can I sue them for not having a strong enough roof? Who determines what level of safety is needed for each particular kind of establishment or structure we might enter?

Personally, I would put movie theaters into the class of "soft targets"... easily penetrated by terrorists, gang members and other evil-doers. No one should expect a movie theater to have facilities that can offer protection from somebody with murderous intent.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

Same applies to his doctor, and Warner Brothers. This assumes Colorado law doesn't prohibit suing any of these entities.

Including Warner Brothers in the suit strikes me as the least defensible aspect of the lawsuit, so I'd be interested to hear you defend it.

According to the linked article, Brown states that some of Holmes actions are "remnant[sic] of some of the film's more graphic and violent scenes." First of all, nobody including Holmes had ever seen the movie before, and he certainly hadn't seen it yet when he was stockpiling weapons and armor and penning a note to his shrink detailing what he planned to do. Second, why should the producers of any movie be held liable for someone imitating what they saw (or in this case, expected to see)? Should Steven Spielberg be held responsible if someone decides to mow down a bunch of Germans on a beach with a machine gun?

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by Loach

Even if they were, movie theaters don't have gunman proof doors.

Yeah. But the point I was trying to make in all of this is that even though they weren't emergency doors, I bet they were the type that are locked from the outside. Crazy SOB had to buy a ticket so he could prop the door open from the inside in order to be able to get back in from the outside later. Had that been an alarmed emergency door, someone presumably would have been like "WTF?" and shut the door due to the blaring alarm. Of course, crazy SOB could have just stormed in through the main entrance at that point, but at least his spree wouldn't have been conducted from within the confines of a crowded theater.

And its all speculation at this point anyway.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

Including Warner Brothers in the suit strikes me as the least defensible aspect of the lawsuit, so I'd be interested to hear you defend it.

According to the linked article, Brown states that some of Holmes actions are "remnant[sic] of some of the film's more graphic and violent scenes." First of all, nobody including Holmes had ever seen the movie before, and he certainly hadn't seen it yet when he was stockpiling weapons and armor and penning a note to his shrink detailing what he planned to do. Second, why should the producers of any movie be held liable for someone imitating what they saw (or in this case, expected to see)? Should Steven Spielberg be held responsible if someone decides to mow down a bunch of Germans on a beach with a machine gun?

I'd have to agree. I have seen Garbo star as Mata Hari and I have no desire to run out and become a spy. I have seen Cabaret and I have no desire to become a stage performer....yadda yadda.

I've been thinking of the legal action and it strikes me that either this guy has the cash cow mentality or he is really ill- in which case this ambulance chaser of an attorney should just fuck off.

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by olivesmarch4th

Really? The theater was obligated to provide protection from gun-wielding maniacs? What part of, ''we live in a random, fucked up, arbitrarily horrible world'' do people not understand? There is no guarantee of safety anywhere, ever.

You're confusing "guaranty" of safety with an obligation to provide a safe viewing environment. Society doesn't expect a guaranty, but they do expect safety. Why do they put fire sprinklers in schools? Why do you have an airbag in your car? None of those are a guaranty, but a reasonable effort to provide a safe environment.

That's a question that the jury will have to decide after the attorney presents his theory of why they breached their obligation to provide a safe environment.

None of that diminishes the ability of the plaintiff to file his suit, it only reflects on the outcome and potential damages he might be awarded.

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

Including Warner Brothers in the suit strikes me as the least defensible aspect of the lawsuit, so I'd be interested to hear you defend it.

According to the linked article, Brown states that some of Holmes actions are "remnant[sic] of some of the film's more graphic and violent scenes." First of all, nobody including Holmes had ever seen the movie before, and he certainly hadn't seen it yet when he was stockpiling weapons and armor and penning a note to his shrink detailing what he planned to do. Second, why should the producers of any movie be held liable for someone imitating what they saw (or in this case, expected to see)? Should Steven Spielberg be held responsible if someone decides to mow down a bunch of Germans on a beach with a machine gun?

The lawyer uses a shotgun approach in naming defendants. Then he adds a dozen or so "John Does" just in case. The reason is that during the course of the trial, something may develop that has demonstrated negligence on the part of that defendant. For instance, suppose the doctor knew that Mr Nutcase had plans of shooting up a public event and did nothing? Or suppose a reasonably prudent doctor would have diagnosed the Nutcase as being a danger to himself or society and did nothing?

These are things that come out over the course of pre-trial discovery or possibly during the trial. If these potential defendants weren't served, the ability to serve them may be lost by the time all the facts filter down to the Plaintiff's attorney.

Suing someone does not mean a recovery. That's where a good attorney comes in and connects the dots between the event and the defendant.