Hit & Run : Reason.com: The 2012 mass shooting in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, was "foreseeable," a federal judge ruled last week. That decision came out of an attempt by the theater's owner to demonstrate otherwise, thus ensuring that lawsuits brought forth by the attacker's victims would be dismissed.
5 comments:
I fail to understand where the judge is coming from for this ruling. It isn’t as if there had been threats against the theatre which would have required extra security. In a situation like that, I could understand claims that the theatre owner was negligent for not preparing properly for a tragedy like this. However, I just do not understand the logic the judge is using basically say that all places at all times need to be prepared for violence, and therefore putting at least part of the blame on the theatre, rather than all of it where it belongs on the perpetrator. Basically, the judge is saying that all places must be paranoid and be prepared for every person with a gun who decides they hate the world, or hire a team of psychics to predict tragedies like this. This does not seem like a ruling that either makes sense, or is useful to the rest of the world.
It's hard to imagine the grief that survivors of the victims of a tragedy like Aurora must feel. It is likewise difficult to imagine the audacity of the lawyers who would work to convince those survivors that a specious lawsuit and a bunch of money will make any of it better. This is clearly a case of the litigious streak in our society going after the entity on this grim scene with the most money. The worst thing this judge's ruling does is give the families involved hope that relief from their pain may be forthcoming, because it isn't, even if they were to win.
The argument that we should all conduct our lives and businesses as though the worst case scenario is inevitable, and be held accountable when the most unlikely events occur, is, as MS. Skenazy correctly points out, "not rational." It's the same reactionary argument that the 2nd Amendment lobby tries to make in support of everyone carrying guns all the time. The thing is, the more you think you need a gun, or armed guards at movie theaters, the more likely an event will occur when it seems like you need them. When armed guards are strutting down the aisle to shush unruly teenagers instead of zit-faced, butter-bespattered ushers, we are creating a power imbalance that will eventually lead to a tragedy. We know this, or at least we should by now. Oscar Grant, Trayvon Martin, Jordan Davis, Michael Brown. And these are just the shootings that have caught the media's attention. Gun violence in this country is rampant, on both sides of the law. More guns, especially wielded by mall cops, is not the answer.
As for the movie theatre and its responsibility to plan for every disaster, that's what we do to an exhaustive measure every time we build a public space in this day and age. Effective planning for a mass shooting, as awful as it may sound, should be no different than planning for a fire. Get people out as quickly and in as many different directions as we can to minimize exposure. Hey, and while we're at it, why not try to make guns at least as difficult to obtain as a driver's license.
This is ruling is absolutely absurd. The judge has basically said that any public gathering place is at risk at all times for some sort attack and that owners should be prepared for the infinitesimal chance that it will actually happen. Putting guns in the hands of more people, especially poorly trained private security, will only increase the risk to the public. Who is to say that one of the armed guards that is hired won't go crazy and shoot up the place he was hired to protect or that more innocent bystanders will be caught in the crossfire if an attack does happen.
Holding the theater responsible for the death of those poor innocent people is entirely irrational. Regardless of what the judge says, there was no way that the theater could have predicted such an event, and even if they had, what would they have been expected to do? These lawsuits are clearly the work of greedy lawyers with very little character and few morals. Let the families grieve, don't drag them through an extended legal battle to make a few bucks.
I find this ruling absolutely appalling. So now every public place where people are allowed to congregate can be considered a hunting ground? And business are now supposed to fight guns with more guns? How does that solve anything? The judge is seriously misplacing the blame here, and the consequences could be extremely severe. More guns or weaponry present, regardless if they're for protective or attack purposes, puts more people in more severe danger. If this idea becomes a trend, then it'll have massively negative effects on the way people congregate in public places. No one would be able to go anywhere without fearing for their lives. All of this could be avoided if they solved the root of the problem by placing the blame on the psychopathic killers and not the innocent victims. Events like this should not be considered "foreseeable" and most certainly shouldn't happen often enough to be considered "foreseeable" in the first place.
I found the article very interesting but at first I wasn't sure how it would tie back to theatre. The final statement certainly does however, as in theater there is a constant juggling act between being adequately prepared and maxing our your budget and time preparing for things that within reason are unlikely.
I am curious how this ruling might be extended to the schools and other businesses where similar incidents have happened. Is the superintendent or principal of a school liable for a mass shooting?
The school district I grew up in, Clear Creek ISD, had a handy little flip book of emergency procedures and policies. The range of emergencies listed was sort of intimidating; going to school you don't typically think about the tornado, hurricane, shooter, or toxic gas you could encounter.
When a violent person is hell-bent on entering a school and committing an atrocity, there are only so many checks to hinder disaster. Theoretically, all doors to the building could be locked from the outside, making the only entrance the front desk. But what if there are multiple buildings on campus? What if someone knocks at the door with a smile and someone's natural reaction is to be kind and let them in? What if the person's ID is scanned and no criminal record comes up because school shooters generally don't have past criminal records, and they're allowed in with a gun in a lunch box?
Once inside the building, there's few precautions left. When notified through an intercom system, meaning something violent has already been seen or begun, teachers are supposed to move their class to a part of the room invisible from the door, turn off the lights, lock the door, and slip a piece of paper on the door? It was always always hard for me to feel comfortable with that amount of security. Most schools have 1 part time to a few full time police officers, which is helpful, but not necessarily a cure.
Extrapolating to a business like a movie theater, entry is less controlled, security forces are probably private and may not carry weapons, and there's no identification system for movie goers.
It seems that very few businesses in the US would be able to ward off a potential killer in the way this judge has expected them to. So where should the slack be tightened? Should businesses be expected to have a full tight system, similar to the TSA, which has still failed?
Post a Comment