Why aren't we surprised to hear about another mall (AKA: Gun Free Zone) shooting?
A better question: Why are the authorities surprised -- and still not getting it that places were people gather UNarmed does NOTHING to stop such criminal/psycho-shooter incidents.
In fact (and as is often the case) THIS shooter stopped himself...which was a good thing since no one else was nearby to do so.
And as per usual, the mall owners -- for having such a GFZ policy -- will not be held AT ALL liable for people killed/wounded on their premises.
Last edited by cloudcroft; 01-17-2015 at 12:44 PM.
(formerly of Galveston and El Paso, Texas)
Business are never held legally responsible/accountable...and TMK, no one ever sues, or if they do, it goes nowhere.
We've gone over this DOUBLE STANDARD in the law here many times -- "the law" seems to prevent business owners from being liable/responsible (or even EXPECT them to be) for employees/customers being injured/killed on their premises...much UNLIKE we homeowners who CAN be held accountable for a guest on OUR premises who has an accident (slipping on an icy sidewalk is a classic). Businesses probably WOULD be held liable if their roof caved-in on employees/customers and maimed/killed them...but for employees/customers being maimed/killed from being SHOT on their premises? No. How does THAT make any sense. Being maimed/killed somewhere is still being maimed/killed, whatever the cause.
Anyone sue Starbucks CEO Howard Shultz re: his 3 baristas getting killed back in 1997? Nope. And that's just one of way too many examples. And yet Starbucks STILL has no armed security, and still prefers no-guns (customers) in its stores. No change at all in Starbucks' corporate policy.
It's a makes-no-sense and moral OUTRAGE.
HAD businesses, malls and schools such liability, they'd either have armed security on their property and/or -- if they were too cheap to pay out $$ for security -- allow employees/customers to take care of themselves (i.e., be armed). But after ALL the shootings we've been seeing for years now, NOTHING has changed: Businesses and malls aren't held legally liable. Neither are schools (grade, colleges and universities). And there's no legal incentive/sanctions to make them change.
It's back to the argument that a business is "private property" even though it's ALSO open to the public, as they have "public access," so we have both private and public property "boundaries" and distinctions to sort out. It's a legal mess.
But then so are our HOMES private property, and public property when we have quests over. And WE are liable for anything happening to our guests -- and often, even UNAUTHORIZED TRESPASSERS (including criminals), too (homeowners should have such liability insurance, or a million $$ umbrella policy because of this).
So what's the difference between homeowners and businesses?
There shouldn't be ANY difference, so the LAW is bad, period, as it keeps getting employees, customers AND students killed -- with none of the property owners (except apt/condo/home owners) ever held responsible -- and with no end in sight to that.
Anyone here want to guess when the NEXT business, mall or school shooting will take place? We know it'll be soon.
So WHEN does this insane criminal negligence on the part of those 3 entities END?
Last edited by cloudcroft; 01-17-2015 at 07:20 PM.
(formerly of Galveston and El Paso, Texas)
They are held accountable by loss in sales, the problem is the public does not have it in them to be responsible for their own safety. If they were, they would not do business with places that restrict carry.
Once the public begins to understand that GFZ places with target rich environment endangers their safety maybe they will wake up. Want a better chance of surviving, avoid malls and theaters that have anti gun policy.
Take note of a car dealership in financial trouble for disrespecting a pizza delivery driver. Purchasing power is mightier than litigation. http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/01...dealership.cnn
Litigation may take years, loss of sales is immediate. The problem here is that the media does not hold the anti gun business accountable. It is up to us.
Last edited by WalkingWolf; 01-17-2015 at 01:40 PM.
Originally Posted by Primus
Homeowners are responsible (liable) for acts of omission - failing to clear snow/ice from the sidewalk - and acts of commission - running the cords to power their Xmas lights from the electric company's power pole straight across the road/sidewalk. Those are things the homeowner a) knew might cause injury to those coming on the property and b) fails/refuses to mitigate the risk. Show me a mall owner/operator that knows - for a certainty - that a specific individual is going to come onto the mall and shoot up the place and I'll show you a mall owner/operator that is liabel. OTOH mall owner/operators understand that lawfully armed citizens may1, when they start shooting, hit and damage property or hit and would innocent shoppers/workers - and thus they take steps to reduce the possibility of that happening.
(I'm not saying that what mall owners/operators do in creating a GFZ is "right" - just pointing out that given the known risk they are acting prudently.)
It would be easy for mall owners/operators to assume liability for the personal protection of their customers against the unanticipated acts of specific third parties. Just hire sufficient security, and impose access restrictions that include, at a minimum, metal detectors followed by pat-downs, and package inspection both visually and by xray. And act to remove and permanently bar any patron whose behavior is deemed "dangerous".
Of course all this is going to cost money. Mall owners/operators get the money to run the mall from rents from the stores in the mall. Stores get the money to run from income from sales before profits are taken. With mall stores already on the decline how much more do you think they can charge and still draw customers - especially given the competition from places like Wally World and the internet?
Yes, we understand that GFZs are a more attractive place for shooters/bombers/people who engage in other socially inappropriate behavior. But knowing that we assume some liability by going to a place we know is risky/dangerous. "Blame the 'victim'" is going to be the name of the game if you manage to get your civil suit into the hopper. And for the vast majority of folks with their heads stuck in their smartphones, and thus do not know that, they are going to get trampled by the argument that they should have known.
1 - given the amazingly high rate of misses by all police/security (except for the most highly trained "operators" who practice force-on-force daily) how do you plan to convince me, the mall owner/operator, their lawyers, and a jury that you are actually any safer?
"He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man
Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.
"No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"