PDA

View Full Version : Let the freeloaders come forth!



FlaGator
07-24-2012, 11:11 AM
It's time for all those who want to make a little blood money over the corpses of 12 innocent people to play their greedy hands.


One of the victims in the James Holmes mass murder spree has lawyered up and plans to file a lawsuit ... because he feels the theater dropped the ball in a very fatal way.

Torrence Brown, Jr. was in Century 16 Theater when Holmes let loose. One of Brown's best friends, A.J. Boik, was shot in the chest and died. Brown, who was not physically injured, claims to now suffer from extreme trauma.

Story is here (http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/24/james-holmes-lawsuit-shooting/)

Apache
07-24-2012, 11:36 AM
I hope that **&^^$$(*^ gets laughed out of court!Dammit....what a piece of garbage :livid:

JB
07-24-2012, 11:37 AM
Brown has hired attorney Donald Karpel to rep him. Karpel tells TMZ ... he is targeting 3 defendants.


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 Holmes entered the theater with a ticket, propped the emergency door open from inside, went to his car and returned with guns.Sounds reasonable. It shouldn't be guarded but I can go along with having an emergency door alarmed. Although when it goes off ten times during a movie I'm sure the patrons will not be happy thus rendering the door unalarmed, again. I don't see giving the guy dough over this.


2. Holmes' doctors. Karpel says it appears Holmes 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 Holmes.Of course, they're doctors. They probably have cash and insurance.


3. Warner Bros. Karpel says "Dark Knight Rises" was particularly violent and Holmes 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."LMAO. Yeah, we are. You think they would make violent movies if no one went to them? For more research into this phenomenon see: The Kardashians, Gazillionaires For No Reason.

Generation Why?
07-24-2012, 12:08 PM
Wow. Just wow. It was only a matter of time.

FlaGator
07-24-2012, 12:19 PM
Wow. Just wow. It was only a matter of time.

The cultural ghouls strike quickly.

Generation Why?
07-24-2012, 01:03 PM
The cultural ghouls strike quickly.

A product of living in a society where everything is done for you.

FlaGator
07-24-2012, 01:18 PM
A product of living in a society where everything is done for you.

I tend to think of people who do things like this as eaters of the dead. The high tech ambulance chasers have taught people that it is ok to make a profit on the misfortune of others.

Odysseus
07-24-2012, 04:40 PM
I tend to think of people who do things like this as eaters of the dead. The high tech ambulance chasers have taught people that it is ok to make a profit on the misfortune of others.

This is the kind of nuisance action that breeds shysters. The lawyer will take a percentage of the settlement as a contingency fee, and the defendants will try to settle, since it would be cheaper than going to court, and less adverse publicity. This is a compelling argument for tort reform. My suggestions:


Loser pays. This would discourage frivolous suits and impose financial costs on litigants. Those who have a real case would still be inclined to sue, but those who are simply filing nuisance suits would be penalized for it.

Lawyer liability. If a lawyer takes a case for a contingency fee, then he should be considered a party to the lawsuit, and as such, held liable for a percentage of the costs if the loser pays.

Award limits. Awards should be limited to actual damages. In this case, the actual damages might be a change of underwear, but otherwise, there's nothing provable.

NJCardFan
07-24-2012, 09:27 PM
3. Warner Bros. Karpel says "Dark Knight Rises" was particularly violent and Holmes 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."

This is the most ridiculous charge of the 3. Holmes mimicked some of the action in DKR? Um, the release of the movie was 1/2 hour old before he started shooting. Unless his choice of vehicle was a Delorean with a flux capacitor or he worked the movie, he would have no idea what was in the movie. Also, having now seen the movie, maliciously shooting people in a theater didn't happen in the movie.

And the plaintiff is black. Go figure. :rolleyes:

Wibbins
07-25-2012, 11:01 AM
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 Holmes entered the theater with a ticket, propped the emergency door open from inside, went to his car and returned with guns.


I don't know, I think this one actually has merit. I mean it's an EMERGENCY DOOR, aren't they supposed to be alarmed so that if there's a fire it alerts everyone else? Also, isn't it kind of odd that the emergency door can be held/propped open at a movie theater? That'd probably cause some serious revenue problems from teens sneaking their buddies in.


Sounds reasonable. It shouldn't be guarded but I can go along with having an emergency door alarmed. Although when it goes off ten times during a movie I'm sure the patrons will not be happy thus rendering the door unalarmed, again. I don't see giving the guy dough over this.


But why would it be going off 10 times during a movie? It's the emergency door that leads outside, only supposed to be used during emergencies

NJCardFan
07-25-2012, 01:26 PM
I don't know, I think this one actually has merit. I mean it's an EMERGENCY DOOR, aren't they supposed to be alarmed so that if there's a fire it alerts everyone else? Also, isn't it kind of odd that the emergency door can be held/propped open at a movie theater? That'd probably cause some serious revenue problems from teens sneaking their buddies in.



But why would it be going off 10 times during a movie? It's the emergency door that leads outside, only supposed to be used during emergencies

Not necessarily. Every theater I've been in the exits are marked "EXIT" and not emergency exit and before every movie, a graphic is shown pointing out where the exits are in case of an emergency. I used to work in a movie theater and aside from the front exit, you could use the exit doors to go to the parking lot after the movie. So unless the exit is marked as an emergency exit, this has no merit.

FlaGator
07-25-2012, 01:34 PM
This is the kind of nuisance action that breeds shysters. The lawyer will take a percentage of the settlement as a contingency fee, and the defendants will try to settle, since it would be cheaper than going to court, and less adverse publicity. This is a compelling argument for tort reform. My suggestions:


Loser pays. This would discourage frivolous suits and impose financial costs on litigants. Those who have a real case would still be inclined to sue, but those who are simply filing nuisance suits would be penalized for it.
Lawyer liability. If a lawyer takes a case for a contingency fee, then he should be considered a party to the lawsuit, and as such, held liable for a percentage of the costs if the loser pays.
Award limits. Awards should be limited to actual damages. In this case, the actual damages might be a change of underwear, but otherwise, there's nothing provable.



I would take this a step further. Loser's lawyer pays. Let him worry about how is is going to recoup the cash.