Aurora Theater Shooting - 1 person derailed the settlement, now 4 on the hook for 700k bill.

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,420
1,600
126
cliffnotes:

- CO allows defendant to recoup legal fees if victorious
- Victims almost reached a settlement (not a very good one mind you, but the best they could've hoped for)
- 1 victim out of 41 rejected the settlement
- after that, 37/41 dropped out of the suit
- now the remaining 4 on the hook for 700k

On the one hand, I feel really bad that they got hosed, twice - actually 3 times if you include the 1 victim that torpedo'd the settlement. On the other hand...c'mon man, we all know the theater wasn't responsible for shit.

On a conference call, the federal judge overseeing the case told the plaintiffs’ attorneys that he was prepared to rule in the theater chain’s favor. He urged the plaintiffs to settle with Cinemark, owner of the Century Aurora 16 multiplex where the July 20, 2012, shooting occurred. They had 24 hours.

But before that deadline, the settlement would collapse and four survivors of the massacre would be ordered to pay the theater chain more than $700,000.

But the settlement would achieve the one thing Weaver had been pushing for, an acknowledgment that the theater chain would take new measures to protect patrons. Still, something was worrying him.

“It was the 12th hour, we were all feeling the same way. We all knew they were liable. We knew they were at fault,” Weaver said. “[The settlement] was a slap in the face. But I said, ‘Let’s go for it because it’s better than nothing.’”

The deal came with an implied threat: If the survivors rejected the deal, moved forward with their case and lost, under Colorado law, they would be responsible for the astronomical court fees accumulated by Cinemark.

The choice for the survivors was clear, Weaver said.

“Either seek justice and go into debt, or take that pitiful offering of money and the improved public safety,” Weaver said.

The plaintiffs and their attorneys all seemed to agree. They decided on a split of $30,000 each to the three most critically injured survivors. The remaining 38 plaintiffs would equally share the remaining $60,000.

Attorneys with Cinemark drafted a news release to distribute the next day.

Then one plaintiff rejected the deal. Her suffering had been profound: Her child was killed in the shooting, she was left paralyzed and the baby she was carrying had been lost.

Weaver’s vision briefly blurred. The eight hours they had spent negotiating the deal, the weeks of the failed state court trial, the four years of anger at the theater since the shooting — all of it was for nothing.

“It was done then,” Weaver said.

He removed himself as a plaintiff immediately. So did 36 other people. Four plaintiffs remained on the case the next day, June 24, when Jackson handed down the order that Cinemark was not liable for the damages.

The court costs in the state case were $699,000. The costs in the federal case are expected to be far more.

“A blind guy in a dark alley could have seen [the state verdict] coming,” Hardman, Weaver’s attorney, said.

Several plaintiffs and attorneys, including those who would not comment on the settlement negotiations, expressed frustration with the way the state case was handled.

In that case, a New York attorney representing 27 people paid one expert $22,000 to testify. Cinemark paid five experts $500,000 to testify. Most damaging to their case, the state plaintiffs were not permitted to enter a crucial piece of evidence before the jury — a May 2012 warning from the Department of Homeland Security to theater chains nationwide concerning the potential for a mass-casualty attack on a theater.

“I strongly think that this guy was trying to make a name for himself and he wanted to get ahead of the curve,” Weaver said. “You’ve got this guy from New York representing people in Colorado who were probably misguided, to be honest.”

The case put forward in state court was so weak, the federal plaintiffs felt, that a rumor circulated among them that the case was a setup by Cinemark designed to fail.

“That’s ridiculous,” said Marc Bern, the attorney who argued the state case and is known for representing rescue workers from the Sept. 11 attacks. “We had all the resources possible. The only expert we needed was a security expert.”

In August 2015, Holmes was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, avoiding the death penalty.

Weaver, 45, has married and had a child since the shooting, a blue-eyed girl named Maggie. He still goes to therapy, which he said has helped him. The way the case ended, however, will never leave him.

“Theaters aren’t any safer,” Weaver said. “It’s almost like everything was for naught.”

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-batman-shooting-lawsuit-20160822-snap-story.html
 

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,111
318
126
iirc, most of the theaters in that area had anti-CCW laws that prevent customers from defending themselves. That kinda makes it the responsibility of the theater when shit hits the fan, just as it's the responsibility of an airline if they lose my luggage while they take control of and transport it.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Maybe I misunderstood some details from the beginning, but I'm stunned the back doors of the theater that were used weren't armed with those alarms and a sign that says, "emergency use only. Alarm will sound if door is opened."
 

MrDudeMan

Lifer
Jan 15, 2001
15,069
94
91
As a CCW license holder, I never go anywhere that prevents me from carrying unless it's absolutely necessary, e.g. airport security. With that in mind, I have a hard time blaming the theater. If you don't like the rules, don't patronize the business. If you choose to accept their rules, deal with the consequences.
 

MrDudeMan

Lifer
Jan 15, 2001
15,069
94
91
Maybe I misunderstood some details from the beginning, but I'm stunned the back doors of the theater that were used weren't armed with those alarms and a sign that says, "emergency use only. Alarm will sound if door is opened."

Do you think that would have made a difference? I don't think I would be alarmed if someone opened the door. I would probably assume it was a kid or a teenager being a kid or a teenager instead of a mass murderer.
 

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,111
318
126
As a CCW license holder, I never go anywhere that prevents me from carrying unless it's absolutely necessary, e.g. airport security. With that in mind, I have a hard time blaming the theater. If you don't like the rules, don't patronize the business. If you choose to accept their rules, deal with the consequences.

That's a fair point, yeah.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Do you think that would have made a difference? I don't think I would be alarmed if someone opened the door. I would probably assume it was a kid or a teenager being a kid or a teenager instead of a mass murderer.
Yes, it would have made a difference - it would have had to be closed to get the alarm to turn off. Don't forget, that's how he made his entrance with the weapons. (I think)
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,420
1,600
126
Maybe I misunderstood some details from the beginning, but I'm stunned the back doors of the theater that were used weren't armed with those alarms and a sign that says, "emergency use only. Alarm will sound if door is opened."

for some theaters, the front doors are valid exit doors and not just emergency exits.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
for some theaters, the front doors are valid exit doors and not just emergency exits.
I don't quite understand your point. You're aware that part way through a movie, he snuck out the emergency exit and left it propped open, went to his car, changed, and returned to the theater through the emergency door, right?
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Yes, it would have made a difference - it would have had to be closed to get the alarm to turn off. Don't forget, that's how he made his entrance with the weapons. (I think)

Was the theater in violation any type of fire/zoning code for not having alarms on doors?
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,565
3,752
126
Was the theater in violation any type of fire/zoning code for not having alarms on doors?

Its been a while since I've done any commercial code work but I am pretty sure there is no requirement to alarm those doors (unless some obscure local ordinance required it). The only real requirement, other than egress dimensions, would be an illuminated Exit sign. Even if there is a sign that says 'alarm will sound' a lot of places use that sign as a deterrent instead of actually putting an alarm there
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,093
45,076
136
Was the theater in violation any type of fire/zoning code for not having alarms on doors?

Alarmed exit doors are more theft deterrent than safety feature and as such are rarely required by code.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,420
1,600
126
I don't quite understand your point. You're aware that part way through a movie, he snuck out the emergency exit and left it propped open, went to his car, changed, and returned to the theater through the emergency door, right?

nope, just knew he went through some rear door that's not the main entrance.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
People frequently exit through the emergency doors at the end of a movie, which would be a problem if they were alarmed.
I hope that Cinemark will do the right thing here and decline to actually pursue their fees and costs here.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,081
136
Based on what I read here, most of those people dont give a shit about a safer community, they wanted cash in the bank. Kinda disgusting.
 

TakeNoPrisoners

Platinum Member
Jun 3, 2011
2,599
1
81
They are getting what they deserve. These people knew the theater had done nothing wrong. They just wanted a fat payday. This is what happens when you fail to cash out of a tragedy.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,721
54,716
136
iirc, most of the theaters in that area had anti-CCW laws that prevent customers from defending themselves. That kinda makes it the responsibility of the theater when shit hits the fan, just as it's the responsibility of an airline if they lose my luggage while they take control of and transport it.

The presence of additional guns in a smoke filled (possible tear gas filled) loud, dark, crowded, panicked place would have likely increased the death toll, not reduced it.

All that aside, I sincerely hope the theater does the right thing and does not pursue fees here.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
Its been a while since I've done any commercial code work but I am pretty sure there is no requirement to alarm those doors (unless some obscure local ordinance required it). The only real requirement, other than egress dimensions, would be an illuminated Exit sign. Even if there is a sign that says 'alarm will sound' a lot of places use that sign as a deterrent instead of actually putting an alarm there

Correct. Movie theaters are NOT required to have alarms on those doors at all. Theaters only do so in order to catch people trying to sneak in to see a movie without paying. Because it is not unheard of for 1 kid to pay for a ticket, then open the back door to let all their friends in after to watch. The alarm basically is there to let workers know the door was opened and to potentially check for those sneaking in to watch stuff. However, in the vast majority of cases, even when the alarm does sound rarely does anyone check it out. Mainly because people do leave by those doors at the end of a show. Which is why most theaters I've gone to don't have alarms on the back doors there. Mainly because they are pointless.

I seriously doubt an alarm would have made any difference. He would have just put his shit in a garbage bag and stuck it by the back door instead of leaving it propped open to go get from his car. Plenty of weirdos walk around dressed strangely in trenchcoats so he could have had everything ready easily.

The main reason for the lawsuit is because the theater was a no CCW zone with zero armed security. Which isn't required by law so the lawsuit was going no where. There is a reason you shouldn't go to places that don't allow CCW without having proper armed security posted. I certainly try not to visit any business that puts 30.06 signs around here for that reason. Even if I am not carrying, I know there are probably some good citizen that is.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,721
54,716
136
The main reason for the lawsuit is because the theater was a no CCW zone with zero armed security. Which isn't required by law so the lawsuit was going no where. There is a reason you shouldn't go to places that don't allow CCW without having proper armed security posted. I certainly try not to visit any business that puts 30.06 signs around here for that reason. Even if I am not carrying, I know there are probably some good citizen that is.

All of New York City is basically a no CCW zone and yet it's one of the safest cities in the country. There is definitely no reason a rational person should avoid places that do not allow concealed carry.
 

Squeetard

Senior member
Nov 13, 2004
815
7
76
How were those 37 allowed to drop from the suit and leave the rest on the hook? This is what doesn't seem right to me. In for a penny in for a pound.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
All of New York City is basically a no CCW zone and yet it's one of the safest cities in the country. There is definitely no reason a rational person should avoid places that do not allow concealed carry.

Being "safe" for NYC is a relatively recent phenomenon. It took several major incidents for the population to be more stringent against violent crime. Most notably 9/11. It was so bad that even the normally violent criminals backed off especially as public outcry reach huge levels to make the city safe no matter what the government had to do. So there is now a crap ton more police, and armed posted security all over NYC compared to before 9/11. Then there was the tons of increased police presence initiatives in 2011 that put far more beat officers on patrol with horses than ever before. So there are now cops that can easily respond in much faster times to a violent crime than before. Still, yorkers are willing to pay for that and do so. Not everywhere is willing to spend that much money for that much armed security presence everywhere.

Which goes back to my stipulation. I do not visit businesses that don't have armed security setup when they don't allow CCW.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,721
54,716
136
Being "safe" for NYC is a relatively recent phenomenon. It took several major incidents for the population to be more stringent against violent crime. Most notably 9/11. It was so bad that even the normally violent criminals backed off especially as public outcry reach huge levels to make the city safe no matter what the government had to do. So there is now a crap ton more police, and armed posted security all over NYC compared to before 9/11. Then there was the tons of increased police presence initiatives in 2011 that put far more beat officers on patrol with horses than ever before. So there are now cops that can easily respond in much faster times to a violent crime than before. Still, yorkers are willing to pay for that and do so. Not everywhere is willing to spend that much money for that much armed security presence everywhere.

Which goes back to my stipulation. I do not visit businesses that don't have armed security setup when they don't allow CCW.

Nope, all wrong. There are actually fewer police now than there were before 9/11 despite a considerably larger population. So reality is the exact opposite of what you said.

You are of course welcome to patronize whatever businesses you want, but your concern is not rational or based in evidence.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
Nope, all wrong. There are actually fewer police now than there were before 9/11 despite a considerably larger population. So reality is the exact opposite of what you said.

You are of course welcome to patronize whatever businesses you want, but your concern is not rational or based in evidence.


Uhh what?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City

https://www.walksofnewyork.com/blog/is-nyc-safe

Law enforcement in New York City is carried out by numerous law enforcement agencies. New York City has the highest concentration of law enforcement agencies in the United States. As with the rest of the US, agencies operate at federal and state levels. However, New York City's unique nature means many more operate at lower levels. Many private police forces also operate in New York City. The New York City Police Department is the main police agency in the city.

The 60's, 70's, and 80's crime in NYC was huge. It took some major changes during those times which included adding tons of new officers to various areas. Either on horse, on foot, or in the subways. Further major incidents like 9/11 sparked even more public outcry over violent events that caused even more government intervention including NYC's "stop and frisk" policy crap. Don't pull that shit like it's in a vacuum because it is not.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,721
54,716
136
Uhh what?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City

https://www.walksofnewyork.com/blog/is-nyc-safe

The 60's, 70's, and 80's crime in NYC was huge. It took some major changes during those times which included adding tons of new officers to various areas. Either on horse, on foot, or in the subways. Further major incidents like 9/11 sparked even more public outcry over violent events that caused even more government intervention including NYC's "stop and frisk" policy crap. Don't pull that shit like it's in a vacuum because it is not.

Let's quote what you said:

So there is now a crap ton more police, and armed posted security all over NYC compared to before 9/11. Then there was the tons of increased police presence initiatives in 2011 that put far more beat officers on patrol with horses than ever before. So there are now cops that can easily respond in much faster times to a violent crime than before. Still, yorkers are willing to pay for that and do so. Not everywhere is willing to spend that much money for that much armed security presence everywhere.

Number of NYPD officers in 2000: 40,800
Number of NYPD officers in 2016: 34,526

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/nyregion/20police.html?_r=0

So there are actually a 'crap ton' FEWER police, which is the exact opposite of what you falsely claimed. Furthermore, stop and frisk policies have not been shown to have a significant impact on crime. What you said was easily, provably false. You don't know what you're talking about.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
Let's quote what you said:



Number of NYPD officers in 2000: 40,800
Number of NYPD officers in 2016: 34,526

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/nyregion/20police.html?_r=0

So there are actually a 'crap ton' FEWER police, which is the exact opposite of what you falsely claimed. Furthermore, stop and frisk policies have not been shown to have a significant impact on crime. What you said was easily, provably false. You don't know what you're talking about.

The drop rate of police force size in the last few years is directly because of the lower crime rate, but that was only because of the MASSIVE ramp up rate prior to that because of the bad crime rate previously. Also, PRIVATE armed security has been on a rise and still is in NYC.

Again, that still goes back to my original stipulation. The fact that most businesses in NYC don't allow CCW isn't what is contributing to the downward crime rate in NYC that has been going on since 1995. Which is what you have implied here. Most of NYC for decades before 1995 didn't allow CCW and up until that point crime was rising out of hand. It's the direct actions of putting tons of armed police all over the place, private armed security, as well as instituting policies like "stop and frisk" on top of the major violent incidents like 9/11 that have dropped crime rates in NYC. Your logic here is non-existent based on what you've implied.

So no, I will not visit any business in most places that don't allow CCW unless there is armed security already close at hand.