Well there already is one trying to sue - so ask them?
http://theblemish.com/2012/07/the-first-lawsuit-against-james-holmes-is-here/
1. The theater. Karpel claims it was negligent for the theater to have an emergency door in the front that was not alarmed or guarded. It’s widely believed xxxxxx entered the theater with a ticket, propped the emergency door open from inside, went to his car and returned with guns.
2. xxxxxx’ doctors. Karpel says it appears xxxxxx was on several medications — prescribed by one or more doctors – at the time of the shooting and he believes the docs did not properly monitor xxxxxx.
3. Warner Bros. Karpel says “Dark Knight Rises” was particularly violent and xxxxxx mimicked some of the action. The attorney says theater goers were helpless because they thought the shooter was part of the movie. Karpel tells TMZ, “Somebody has to be responsible for the rampant violence that is shown today.”
Respectfully redacted by me.
Codswallop. Karpel is just making noise with his blow hole.
1. Negligence is found when it can be determined that something was foreseeable and that an entity or person failed in their basic duty of care. A person entering a theater, then exiting out an emergency exit, which he then props open, only to return with an arsenal, is certainly not foreseeable. Having guards at the emergency exits would be financially prohibitive and is not required, legally. Having alarms would also not be required. And alarms would just encourage kids to run around causing havoc in theaters. Alarms would not alert people that a mass murderer is approaching.
2. There has been no MSM confirmation of any kind, not even a rumor, that the coward was prescribed psych meds or under a doctor's care for mental issues. Speculation, yes, but nothing more. However, if he was, under Colorado law, his psychiatrist could be liable for his conduct if it was very clear that he posed a danger to society and the doctor was negligent in his care of the patient, such as ordering his release from a mental institution. Failing to "monitor" the patient would not render the doctor liable unless his failure to monitor was accompanied by an over act such as release from the hospital or a letter to his school stating he was stable or sane, when the doctor had not assessed him.
https://litigation-essentials.lexis...cid=3B15&key=83e214567f005cf17fef909e77cd0b24
3. Please. The movie business would go under if producers of "violent" film were held liable for the conduct of anyone who claimed they acted as a result of the film. The media has been found by various court rulings (upheld by the supreme court) to have a first amendment right to express what they want and no foreseeable causal link between violent media and violent conduct has been found in these cases:
http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Sanders_v._Acclaim_Entertainment
Sanders v. Acclaim Entertainment, a Colorado case, evidences that.
In the article you cite, Karpel states:
“Somebody has to be responsible for the rampant violence that is shown today.” as a justification for why such lawsuits should be filed. Well I have news for him. Someone will be held accountable. The murderer. Isn't that a novel idea? Geez Louise!!
Actually faking it could get him out of it someday if he convinces the court that he is insane. If this happens he will be sent to a mental hospital where if it is determined the he is someday cured he can be set free. It's called innocent be reason of insanity. The implying that he is "innocent" once he is determined to no longer be a threat to society (in other words cured) he can be discharged from a mental hospital because he would not be "legally guilty" of anything. For example, Susan Smith's doctors are trying to get her released from the mental hospital she was sent to following killing her 5 children. I'm not saying that he will get off; what I am saying is I believe he's trying to fake insanity with the hopes of this happening. As for my labeling him as pure evil, sorry if thats not a politically correct term but some serious offenders are just that. I don't believe in coddling these monsters by giving them some classy mental illness term. He's sick, hes evil, he's a monster.
We are not Canada. It's highly, highly unlikely. If a guy is found that ill in the U.S. he will never be released from a mental institution. But it would be a rare thing to see him found not guilty by reason of insanity at all, even if he was gibbering under the table during trial. Do you all realize how many seriously ill people are sentenced to prison? People who cannot even stay in their seat during their trial? This guy looked as sober as the judge in his recent appearance, in comparison.
To me, this is an open and shut case. The school has already received a $55,000 fine from the U.S. Education Department after a state panel investigation found officials erred in not sending a warning alert out earlier
THis is my deal I think they are being hush hush now
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mari-fagel/did-virginia-tech-fail_b_1321378.html
Honey, you do realize that the Virginia Tech case was about their failure to warn students that an emergency was occurring, after that emergency began, even though they had time and the means to do so and it could have saved lives? Virginia Tech. was not and will not be found liable for not "responding" or "addressing" possible mental issues of the mass murderer there.
I am an attorney and I ask that you trust me on this because it is getting weary to cite all these cases and law to rebut every misconception. But schools are not guardians of the students that attend and the staff have no duty to monitor their behavior and assess them for potential mental problems. Okay? The only exception to that would be if a seriously disturbed student threatened repeatedly to harm staff or other students and the school failed to expel that student, who then harmed staff or other students. That's it. You need a clear threat and likely more than one. Odd behavior is simply not enough.
Patterns,dying hair odd color , failing boards, dropping outof elite grad school after doing great a year, , scaring gun store owners, gun range people refusing admission, and that is all we know now there will be IMO tons of signs for months . IMO IMOIMOIMOIMOIMO
Whoa, what? Do you know how many college kids dye their hair? We do not have confirmation that this guy failed. Students drop out every day across America from difficult programs, no gun store owner stated they were "scared" by this creep (link), and the observations of the gun range owner were unknown by anyone but the gun range staff, so that behavior
does not indicate a thing unless it was made known to people in the murderer's life who may have been aware of other changes.
I mean, are you aware of how many people begin acting oddly or having extreme upheaval in their lives who do NOT then massacre a bunch of people, or even one person?
I know this is scary and we want to be able to find something that could predict what was going to happen so we can somehow avoid it in the future, but sometimes unpredictable tragedies just happen. Sometimes, evil succeeds in its mission.
Andrea is one of the few cases I've ever followed where I agreed she had to be insane. I would support her being released from prison.
Although I agree she is insane I would not support her release. Once a person goes that crazy that they kill another, especially their own children, they are like a dog gone bad, IMO and need to be locked up for life. She has reached such a level of insanity that it is unlikely she will ever be stable enough to be in a society that does not strictly monitor such persons, or remain stable enough. :twocents:
