Four years after the mass shooting, the civil trial in this horrible incident will begun in July. Sadly, the plaintiffs have been prevented from suing the theater chain over lax security. But does that mean that the "gun free" status of the theater will not be an issue? The short answer is NO WAY.
The lawsuits are proceeding under a section of Colorado civil law that is typically used for "slip and fall" lawsuits. In other words, the plaintiffs are going to argue that the theater chain created a hazardous condition.
The most common argument I see online regarding gun free zones and civil liability is that "if they disarm me they should be responsible for my security". Unfortunately, that argument is highly unlikely to work. Why? Well, it is your choice to enter or not. No one forces you to disarm - you could always stay out of the business.
However, there is another angle that is so well suited to the line of argument open to the plaintiffs that I will be amazed if they don't use it: By posting the theater as "no guns permitted" the theater owners created a hazardous condition. In other words, the phony gun free zone - enforced on the honor system - actually attracted the shooter to this theater.
This should be a very easy case to make. First of all, there is an very strong association between unsecured gun free zones and mass shootings. In fact, it is exceedingly rare for a mass shooting to happen outside of these phony gun free zones. The reason is simple: The mass murderer can counter on a lot more time before armed opposition arrives.
Then there are the particular facts of this case. Of all the theaters showing his chosen film, he did not pick the one closest to he home, or the one furthest away, or the one with the most people or the least number of people. Only one thing sets his chosen theater apart from the others: It was the only one that was posted with signs banning lawful concealed carry. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that this theater was chosen because of a policy of not allowing lawful concealed carry, while doing nothing to keep people bent upon evil acts from violating that policy.
This argument is devastating because it does not restrict itself to those people who might have carried - instead, it establishes two things:
1) The theater took actions that attracted the shooter to that theater
2) The signs created the impression of a safer facility, while in fact making it more dangerous.
Will the court allow this argument? I don't know - but if my lawyer did not at least try to use it, I would fire him!
No comments:
Post a Comment