\
Once again. We’re talking about the rear door. The one with unrestricted access to and from the dark parking lot at the rear of the building. We’re not talking about the front or the* main* door. Please don’t make me repeat that again.
Of course, just alarming the door wouldn’t be enough, because the badguy could pop out, grab weapons and start shooting before anybody could react to the alarm. You would need both security outside the exit looking for suspicious packages, and ushers standing by the emergency exits to make sure nobody exits inappropriately. One or two exits per theatre x 16 screens.
I fucking understand what you are saying-are you saying that the security measure you wish to implement concerning access should be enough to forstall suits, or is there still more that should be done?
Would a security guard wandering the parking lot be a bad idea?
Edited.
I’m saying that this door issue will be a major issue in these trials that will follow. If you eliminated that, the theater would have one less very major issue to deal with.
So answer the question, for fuck’s sake!
What would it take to convince you that adequate security was being provided by the theatre? Don’t give me “to start withs”, “at the very leasts” or “one of the things they could dos”. Just tell me what it would take, security wise, for you to say that the theatre had done enough.
Exactly. By law, they can’t prevent him from leaving. And if you can leave, you can enter, too, by simply propping open the door. An alarm would have done nothing to protect those poor people, unless you propose arming ushers with semi-automatic rifles.
Besides, “Law enforcement officials were on scene within a minute and a half of the incident. Twenty-five police officers first responded to the scene, eventually 200 officers were on the scene.”
What more do you want?
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/world_news&id=8743134
But the rear door already DOES have restricted access from the parking lot! It’s locked from the outside. That’s why Holmes had to come in via the front door, them prop the emergency exit door open for a minute or so in order to go outside to get his stuff.
And no, alarming the emergency exit doors won’t stop that. All he has to do is to place his bag o’guns right by the exit door before he goes into the theater via the main entrance. Sure, when he opens the door, the alarm will go off - but so what? He’ll be able to reach the bag and grab his guns in a matter of seconds. All an alarm does is guarantee that the theater security people will get shot along with the patrons. (If they even respond promptly to the alarm sound in the first place; I suspect after a few hundred incidences of the alarm going off because a dumbass teenager was horsing around will have induced a “boy who cried wolf!” effect quite thoroughly by the time Mr. Nutcase Gunman pulls his stunt.)
It would take 2 or more years of pre-trail discovery and a jury verdict in favor of the theater. As it stands right now, I’d drive to Las Vegas to bet on a positive outcome for the plaintiffs in this case and I’ll bet I go home a winner.
Thank you for wasting our time, gutless wonder. This had absolutely nothing to do with what a fucking lawyer could get away with manipulating a jury. I was asking what it would take to convince you that adequate security measures had been taken.
Based on what? You’ve yet to show any negligence on the part of the theater. Why should the plaintiffs get a single dime, when the theater was pretty much like every other theater in the town in regards to the level of security provided?
I understand you believe that; what’s not clear is why you seem to think that’s the proper and just outcome. Unless I’m mistaking your dogged devil’s advocacy for… advocacy, in which case I apologize.
If you were the sole arbiter, would you award damages to the plaintiff?
He doesn’t give a shit whether there was adequate security or not. He just thinks that a lawyer would be able to manipulate a jury into awarding the client.
…Until you go to the theater again, and have to pay an extra $2 to cover the cost of frivolous and merit-less lawsuits. Then we all lose.
And, as I mentioned before, that will only encourage the 100,000 teenagers who find it absofuckinglutely hilarious to make the alarm go off in the middle of a movie. And it won’t stop a gunman whatsoever. Sure, on the 100,001st time it goes off, you may have an actual gunman and get 30 seconds of warning from the alarm when he runs to his car and runs back again. The rest of the time you’ve just annoyed your patrons for no reason whatsoever. You’ve also given your patrons one less exit to the theatres when the movie’s over.
Of course they are. Because we live in a world where you can hit the goddamned jackpot when something bad happens to someone else. And, again, as I said in another post, it doesn’t matter how well or piss poor this plays before a jury because this [del]blackmail [/del] lawsuit will be settled out of court.
But along with **Czarcasm’s ** repeated request for what you feel would be adequate security, I’ll ask you this: if a theatre enacted whatever security you felt to be adequate, wouldn’t they then open themselves up to even greater liability specifically because they put security measures in place? Clearly the theatre was conceding that there was a threat.
Oh and I seriously want to smack you for this comment:
As if that emotional bullshit has ANYTHING to do with the legal question of whose fucking fault it is. That you’re even saying shit like this means you’ve completely lost track of what this entire thread is about.
Which is pointless, as they will need to rebuild their facilities to survive a rental-truck full of improvised explosives parked outside, lest they be liable for not protecting their patrons from possible harm.
Go ahead, say what’s on your mind. (If you’ll forgive the overstatement)
LOL. It appears I’m not the only one thinking theaters were scrambling to review security concerns.
:dubious: toy time? you’re a dirty scoundrel! :eek: 
Oh, indeed. And I dare say theaters should not only secure rear door access but also restrict attendance to non-mass-murderers (as long as we’re speaking in platitudes).
But I have a question for you:
What do you think would be adequate security for a movie theater in such situations?
Did you not bother reading other people’s responses at all? Several people acknowledged that you’re right, theaters are probably reviewing their security. But not because it’s actually justified, just because they’re afraid of being sued. And look how “successful” the TSA is with it’s security theater - it’s not surprising that theater security theater (heh!) may well come into being. But it’s not in any way the rational thing to do.