Mass Shooting at Theater In Denver Area (Dark Knight)

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Matthean

Stay classy Dane Cook.

Dane Cook uses theater shooting in LA comedy routine [VIDEO] | The Daily Caller

That is about as classy as he gets. I can't believe he still has a career. I hear about him way more as somebody who said something "controversial" than as someone who made someone else laugh.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I generally am a fan of Dane Cook

I think this statement warrants a twitter apology

[Rizon]

Never thought I'd see a video like this

[jeff061]

I like how they made him look like an army commando instead of the more typical scrawny dork.

[molson]

I know this kind of thing is covered in about a million threads here in various contexts, but I found this kind of interesting:

Widow of Colorado theater shooting victim sues psychiatrist - CNN.com

I don't have an opinion on it either way but I think it really illustrates how complicated this problem is, as opposed to the more simple "more v. no more gun regulations/culture war thing." One, if I'm a therapist, I'm going to be very wary of treating anyone with violent tendencies if I'm going to be on the hook for their actions. Two, there's definitely problems with an individual therapist being the deciding factor on whether someone gets an involuntary 72-hour mental hold under state law. Why was it her call alone? I don't know Colorado law but generally, law enforcement can make the call, they just don't like to (probably for liability reasons). Sure, a therapist can bring more expertise to the decision, but it's just one voice, there's potential conflicts of interest, and potential issues in having effective treatment if the patient knows that the therapist has the power to lock them up if they don't answer questions the right way. That's not the best environment for a candid expression of symptoms, etc. I do believe we should be involuntarily committing more people, but I'm also wary on the effect that will have on effective treatment (people and family members of the mentally ill will be more likely to hide from treatment if they know involuntary commitment is a bigger possibility.)

[PilotMan]

Therapists always have a responsibility to report to law enforcement personnel if a client poses a danger to himself or others. It's certainly not something that is new, although we typically don't see lawsuits like this because of time and circumstance. However, professionals usually err on the side of caution, and the client is always briefed and aware that confidentiality has its limits.

The hard part here will be determining, without hindsight, if she did indeed have enough information to make that call.

[molson]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Therapists always have a responsibility to report to law enforcement personnel if a client poses a danger to himself or others. It's certainly not something that is new, although we typically don't see lawsuits like this because of time and circumstance. However, professionals usually err on the side of caution, and the client is always briefed and aware that confidentiality has its limits.

The hard part here will be determining, without hindsight, if she did indeed have enough information to make that call.

From what it sounds like, she did notify law enforcement at some point. I don't know how many details she provided (even now the prosecutors haven't been allowed to access some of her work product). But then you just have a general awareness that this guy was a dangerous nutjob, in a country where where law enforcement and therapists are probably aware of thousands upon thousands of dangerous nutjobs walking the streets. How do we decide which ones to lock up, whose call is that, and what is the legal remedy if someone makes a wrong call in either direction? It's a mess.

[NobodyHere]

Somebody needs to explain the meaning of this to me

Federal judge rules Aurora theater shooting was foreseeable - The Denver Post

If the shooting was foreseeable, what exactly was the theater owner supposed to do.

[flere-imsaho]

If you apply that logic broadly, using established precedents of firearms attacks in the United States, and given the frequency of those attacks, then we should probably be living in a police state and also probably, and ironically, with firearms outlawed.

[Easy Mac]

Maybe when the police forces demilitarize, they can sell off their wares to movie theaters.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Somebody needs to explain the meaning of this to me

Federal judge rules Aurora theater shooting was foreseeable - The Denver Post

If the shooting was foreseeable, what exactly was the theater owner supposed to do.

Your last question remains to be answered and this doesn't mean that the theater owner is liable in any way. In short, it's the right ruling. The ruling was a rejection for summary judgement for the theater owner because the shooting was "legally unforeseeable". There have been mass shootings at McDonalds, cafeterias, colleges, elementary schools, outside government offices, postal offices, community centers, GMAC, middle of the street, hair salons, nursing homes, machine shops, etc. Is it legally unforeseeable that it would happen at a public pool, Disney World or...a movie theater? Tough to argue that one.

Again, this has nothing to do whether the theater owner should be ultimately liable. That has yet to be determined. This is a ruling on a relatively small point of law and is the correct one at that.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

This is a ruling on a relatively small point of law and is the correct one at that.

Let's reverse the question for a moment -- just in the interest of trying to understand this one better -- what would qualify as a location where a shooting would be legally unforseeable?

A civilian being gunned down inside a police station maybe?

Late last year USA Today summarized the mass killings in the U.S. since 2006. 36 of those were in public places.

7 - business
6 - school
5 - street/public
3 - coffee shop/restaurant
3 - hearing/court/government event
2 - apt complex
2- mall
2 - military base
1 - hotel
1 - theater
1 - political rally
1 - church/religious
1 - nursing home
1 - high profile event (Boston Marathon)

There are, give or take, 4000-5000 theaters in the U.S. (couldn't find a solid figure, only a current screen count). That's 1/4000 chance at a theater.

By comparison, the DOJ identifies approximately 1,038,000 incidents per year that could be classified broadly as a "home invasion". About a quarter of those result in some form of violent victimization. Call it 250,000 for a round number, out of around 120m homes in the U.S. That's 1 injury / 480 homes.

Given all of that, is there ANYWHERE where being a victim is "legally unforeseeable" at this point?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Let's reverse the question for a moment -- just in the interest of trying to understand this one better -- what would qualify as a location where a shooting would be legally unforseeable?

A civilian being gunned down inside a police station maybe?

Late last year USA Today summarized the mass killings in the U.S. since 2006. 36 of those were in public places.

7 - business
6 - school
5 - street/public
3 - coffee shop/restaurant
3 - hearing/court/government event
2 - apt complex
2- mall
2 - military base
1 - hotel
1 - theater
1 - political rally
1 - church/religious
1 - nursing home
1 - high profile event (Boston Marathon)

There are, give or take, 4000-5000 theaters in the U.S. (couldn't find a solid figure, only a current screen count). That's 1/4000 chance at a theater.

By comparison, the DOJ identifies approximately 1,038,000 incidents per year that could be classified broadly as a "home invasion". About a quarter of those result in some form of violent victimization. Call it 250,000 for a round number, out of around 120m homes in the U.S. That's 1 injury / 480 homes.

Given all of that, is there ANYWHERE where being a victim is "legally unforeseeable" at this point?

Given the gun laws in this country, I can't see anywhere - including inside a police station - where a mass shooting would be legally unforeseeable. However, that doesn't mean the owner should be liable. There are plenty of other defenses that can be used to show the owner should not be liable. This just isn't one.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Let's reverse the question for a moment -- just in the interest of trying to understand this one better -- what would qualify as a location where a shooting would be legally unforseeable?

A civilian being gunned down inside a police station maybe?

Late last year USA Today summarized the mass killings in the U.S. since 2006. 36 of those were in public places.

7 - business
6 - school
5 - street/public
3 - coffee shop/restaurant
3 - hearing/court/government event
2 - apt complex
2- mall
2 - military base
1 - hotel
1 - theater
1 - political rally
1 - church/religious
1 - nursing home
1 - high profile event (Boston Marathon)

There are, give or take, 4000-5000 theaters in the U.S. (couldn't find a solid figure, only a current screen count). That's 1/4000 chance at a theater.

By comparison, the DOJ identifies approximately 1,038,000 incidents per year that could be classified broadly as a "home invasion". About a quarter of those result in some form of violent victimization. Call it 250,000 for a round number, out of around 120m homes in the U.S. That's 1 injury / 480 homes.

Given all of that, is there ANYWHERE where being a victim is "legally unforeseeable" at this point?

Your numbers don't quite work as comparisons. The second set is per year, the first per 7-8 years, depending on when the figures were taken from to.

So assuming it's a set of figures over seven full years, the chances of a mass killing in a particular theatre per year should be 1/(4000*7), or 1/28,000 for those that don't want to do the basic maths, assuming everything else is correct (which i've not read through, as being a Brit, entering into gun control debate will only end in arguments all round )

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Your numbers don't quite work as comparisons. The second set is per year, the first per 7-8 years, depending on when the figures were taken from to.

So assuming it's a set of figures over seven full years, the chances of a mass killing in a particular theatre per year should be 1/(4000*7), or 1/28,000 for those that don't want to do the basic maths, assuming everything else is correct (which i've not read through, as being a Brit, entering into gun control debate will only end in arguments all round )

Which makes it even more rare. But we've got legal precedent for that degree of occurrence, meaning that I'm not sure that there's anywhere that would be immune / fall short of the same ruling.

I'm not particularly objecting to the ruling mind you, I'm just thinking more along the lines of "maybe we're to the point that there isn't anywhere that would generate a different legal outcome". (My exercise was more along the lines of trying to come up with somewhere that would be the exception)

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Which makes it even more rare

To be honest I only tuned in to see if the new posts were new information on the shooter: hadn't fully read your argument or any posts above yours, just noticed the anomaly in the numbers

Glad it helped though

[DaddyTorgo]

So is this the general "guns" thread now?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

So is this the general "guns" thread now?

It's coming right for us!

BLAM

They coming right for us!!! - YouTube

[DaddyTorgo]

Linda Maddox: Tampa-area woman accidentally shoots 7-year-old grandson - wptv.com

TOWN 'N' COUNTRY, Fla. - Deputies said a Tampa-area woman accidentally shot her 7-year-old grandson early Tuesday morning after she thought he was an intruder.

Investigators said Linda Maddox was sleeping with her twin grandsons, Tyler Maddox and his brother, at 6505 Alta Monte Drive.

The boys' father had gone to work, and the grandmother placed a chair against the bedroom door handle for extra protection.

Just before 1 a.m., Linda Maddox, 63, heard the chair sliding against the wood floor.

Assuming it was an intruder, she grabbed a loaded .22 caliber revolver she keeps by the bed and she fired one shot in the dark, towards the door.

Stray bullet wounds man, kills woman in Helen, Ga. | www.ajc.com

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
A Texas woman died late Saturday after she was struck by a stray gunshot in the town of Helen in North Georgia.

Police said the bullet came from a small-caliber handgun carried by a 53-year-old man from Jasper, Ga. The gun accidentally discharged, and the bullet traveled across Helen’s tourist-laden Main Street and struck the woman in the side.

Bystanders attempted to administer first aid, police said, but authorities pronounced the woman dead at the scene.

The shooting took place outside the Old Heidelberg restaurant and bar, one of many Bavarian-themed businesses in Helen, a town of about 500 residents in White County, 90 miles northeast of downtown Atlanta. The town’s main route, Ga. 75, is often crowded with visitors, many of them motorcyclists attracted by the area’s twisting mountainous roads.

Officers from the Helen Police Department responded to a call of shots fired at 10:41 p.m. Saturday. They first found the 53-year-old man, identified as Glenn Patrick Lampien, sitting on a bench, his hand bleeding. Officers then learned of a second victim, the Texas woman across the street, apparently struck by the same bullet.

[miked]

I've been to Helen many a time. I always thought I could die by falling off my tube into the 3 inch deep ice cold water trying to save my floating cooler rather than a stray gunshot.

[cartman]

A Texas woman died late Saturday after she was struck by a stray gunshot in the town of Helen in North Georgia.

What the hell kind of gun was it if it was fired in North Georgia and struck a woman in Texas?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

What the hell kind of gun was it if it was fired in North Georgia and struck a woman in Texas?

Haven't you heard? They make everything bigger in Texas.

(Just to add another layer of complexity & confusion, the guy who misfired/discharged/dropped/whateverthehellhappened the gun lives in my original hometown, he was just a tourist in Helen too apparently. Not a local by birth best I could figure, I'd never heard of him before the story broke)

[cartman]

He gets life, no parole.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0QC1X020150807

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by cartman

He gets life, no parole.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0QC1X020150807

Glad it's done, tired of the nonstop coverage. Don't care if he got life or death, he was never going to see the light of day again regardless

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

He gets life, no parole.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0QC1X020150807

Was 11-1 to fry, with two reportedly wavering so the jury just basically said fuck it let's go home.

An example (although not necessarily a prime one) of why I support super majority at most as the proper threshold.

[stevew]

That's kinda fucked. The cops should have put him down in the first place.