The shooter's brother was arrested with child pornography.
A family riddled with loser genetics.
You know the brother has been crapping his pants since the shooting, he must have known his life was going to be under a microscope being related to the guy.
This brother isnt the brother that was interviewed shortly after the shootings, this brother was another brother.
Ah, thank you. I just assumed it was the brother who was giving all those interviews on the news. Definitely good to be specific when discussing child porn charges!
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I still get amazed about getting amazed about these kind of newsflashes. There is no boundaries in what is possible.
| Pinkpop 1992 *BEST EVER* | Rotterdam 1993 | Amsterdam 1996 | Pinkpop 2000 | Arnhem 2006 | Nijmegen 2007 | Rotterdam 2009 | Nijmegen 2010 | Amsterdam I + II 2012 ** | Amsterdam Eddie Vedder Solo 2012 First European Concert *EPIC*| Amsterdam I + II 2014 | Amsterdam Eddie Vedder Solo 2016 night I | Amsterdam I + II 2018 | Amsterdam I -> Canceled + II 2022 *EPIC
What is Mandalay Bay supposed to do? Pay out millions of dollars for something completely out of their control?
If a lawsuit like this actually goes through where the hotel is liable then it will set a precedent and snowball out of control.
The hotel can be charged, the concert venue can be charged, gun manufacturers can be charged, the city could be charged, so on and so forth.
With all this being said the Hotel should do some sort of saving face and pay for doctors bills or try and file it under their insurance.
Thinking more about this there won't be any silver lining from any of this...
They are “supposed to” defend themselves in the suits against them. They don’t need to counter sue. I wrote more in the other thread about this that I don’t want to repeat, but this is really an extra kick to victims.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Honestly - this seems like a really smart move by the company. Why shouldn't there be 1 decision to decide if anyone can sue? Why waste the time and effort and resources on individual lawsuits if they will all be found baseless?
What is Mandalay Bay supposed to do? Pay out millions of dollars for something completely out of their control?
If a lawsuit like this actually goes through where the hotel is liable then it will set a precedent and snowball out of control.
The hotel can be charged, the concert venue can be charged, gun manufacturers can be charged, the city could be charged, so on and so forth.
With all this being said the Hotel should do some sort of saving face and pay for doctors bills or try and file it under their insurance.
Thinking more about this there won't be any silver lining from any of this...
They are “supposed to” defend themselves in the suits against them. They don’t need to counter sue. I wrote more in the other thread about this that I don’t want to repeat, but this is really an extra kick to victims.
this lawsuit seeks to render the victims lawsuits moot. they arent seeking damages. but seeking remedy in federal court to nullify those suits.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
What is Mandalay Bay supposed to do? Pay out millions of dollars for something completely out of their control?
If a lawsuit like this actually goes through where the hotel is liable then it will set a precedent and snowball out of control.
The hotel can be charged, the concert venue can be charged, gun manufacturers can be charged, the city could be charged, so on and so forth.
With all this being said the Hotel should do some sort of saving face and pay for doctors bills or try and file it under their insurance.
Thinking more about this there won't be any silver lining from any of this...
They are “supposed to” defend themselves in the suits against them. They don’t need to counter sue. I wrote more in the other thread about this that I don’t want to repeat, but this is really an extra kick to victims.
this lawsuit seeks to render the victims lawsuits moot. they arent seeking damages. but seeking remedy in federal court to nullify those suits.
I know. I don’t agree with their attempt to use this law in this way.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
What is Mandalay Bay supposed to do? Pay out millions of dollars for something completely out of their control?
If a lawsuit like this actually goes through where the hotel is liable then it will set a precedent and snowball out of control.
The hotel can be charged, the concert venue can be charged, gun manufacturers can be charged, the city could be charged, so on and so forth.
With all this being said the Hotel should do some sort of saving face and pay for doctors bills or try and file it under their insurance.
Thinking more about this there won't be any silver lining from any of this...
They are “supposed to” defend themselves in the suits against them. They don’t need to counter sue. I wrote more in the other thread about this that I don’t want to repeat, but this is really an extra kick to victims.
this lawsuit seeks to render the victims lawsuits moot. they arent seeking damages. but seeking remedy in federal court to nullify those suits.
I know. I don’t agree with their attempt to use this law in this way.
Why should they have the defend themselves against hundreds of individual lawsuits if the question of whether they can even be sued for and held liable for the event isn’t answered?
What is Mandalay Bay supposed to do? Pay out millions of dollars for something completely out of their control?
If a lawsuit like this actually goes through where the hotel is liable then it will set a precedent and snowball out of control.
The hotel can be charged, the concert venue can be charged, gun manufacturers can be charged, the city could be charged, so on and so forth.
With all this being said the Hotel should do some sort of saving face and pay for doctors bills or try and file it under their insurance.
Thinking more about this there won't be any silver lining from any of this...
They are “supposed to” defend themselves in the suits against them. They don’t need to counter sue. I wrote more in the other thread about this that I don’t want to repeat, but this is really an extra kick to victims.
this lawsuit seeks to render the victims lawsuits moot. they arent seeking damages. but seeking remedy in federal court to nullify those suits.
I know. I don’t agree with their attempt to use this law in this way.
Why should they have the defend themselves against hundreds of individual lawsuits if the question of whether they can even be sued for and held liable for the event isn’t answered?
On the other hand, why should they be able to use a law designed to protect companies in very different circumstances when they aren’t involved in those circumstances?
The courts sort out these types of issues all the time. If the first couple of suits failed, then the odds are high that the others would be withdrawn. They won’t have to individually defend against hundreds of suits. However, if the suits are barred, then we’ll never hear the evidence as to whether they were negligent or not.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
The nerve of those people letting themselves get shot at! I swear!
But that isn't what it's about at all. I noticed immediately that the news media is completely misrepresenting this for some reason, and that people are reacting exactly the way the news media appears to want them to... in the way you reacted, Brian. All MGM is doing is attempting to keep itself from getting sued for the massacre. And frankly, while I don't want any victims to have to deal with any of this, I think that is a reasonable thing to attempt on MGM's part. I don't think it's fair that any of the victims are trying to sue MGM for the massacre in the first place, and that is all this counter suit is about. I do understand that the law MGM is attempting to use here doesn't seem to apply because of the definition of terrorism.... But I still think MGM should not be held responsible for the massacre, and since MGM is getting sued for it, I think this was likely the only method they could think of to try and stop that injustice from happening, unfortunately for everyone.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The nerve of those people letting themselves get shot at! I swear!
But that isn't what it's about at all. I noticed immediately that the news media is completely misrepresenting this for some reason, and that people are reacting exactly the way the news media appears to want them to... in the way you reacted, Brian. All MGM is doing is attempting to keep itself from getting sued for the massacre. And frankly, while I don't want any victims to have to deal with any of this, I think that is a reasonable thing to attempt on MGM's part. I don't think it's fair that any of the victims are trying to sue MGM for the massacre in the first place, and that is all this counter suit is about. I do understand that the law MGM is attempting to use here doesn't seem to apply because of the definition of terrorism.... But I still think MGM should not be held responsible for the massacre, and since MGM is getting sued for it, I think this was likely the only method they could think of to try and stop that injustice from happening, unfortunately for everyone.
I disagree. We don't know all of the details on if any policies weren't followed by the hotel and can't assume there wasn't some negligence. I don't feel bad for Mandalay Bay and think it's ridiculous how they're responding. As someone else already stated, they would never have to try every case if they were able to establish their grounds for dismissal in the first few. The cases would never make it to court unless they could identify some extenuating circumstance that made it different from the rest. From what I've heard, they already made some changes to certain policies to improve security moving forward, which lawyers often like to use as an indicator that they failed to properly protect the public and other patrons from harm in the first place.
The nerve of those people letting themselves get shot at! I swear!
But that isn't what it's about at all. I noticed immediately that the news media is completely misrepresenting this for some reason, and that people are reacting exactly the way the news media appears to want them to... in the way you reacted, Brian. All MGM is doing is attempting to keep itself from getting sued for the massacre. And frankly, while I don't want any victims to have to deal with any of this, I think that is a reasonable thing to attempt on MGM's part. I don't think it's fair that any of the victims are trying to sue MGM for the massacre in the first place, and that is all this counter suit is about. I do understand that the law MGM is attempting to use here doesn't seem to apply because of the definition of terrorism.... But I still think MGM should not be held responsible for the massacre, and since MGM is getting sued for it, I think this was likely the only method they could think of to try and stop that injustice from happening, unfortunately for everyone.
I disagree. We don't know all of the details on if any policies weren't followed by the hotel and can't assume there wasn't some negligence. I don't feel bad for Mandalay Bay and think it's ridiculous how they're responding. As someone else already stated, they would never have to try every case if they were able to establish their grounds for dismissal in the first few. The cases would never make it to court unless they could identify some extenuating circumstance that made it different from the rest. From what I've heard, they already made some changes to certain policies to improve security moving forward, which lawyers often like to use as an indicator that they failed to properly protect the public and other patrons from harm in the first place.
The nerve of those people letting themselves get shot at! I swear!
But that isn't what it's about at all. I noticed immediately that the news media is completely misrepresenting this for some reason, and that people are reacting exactly the way the news media appears to want them to... in the way you reacted, Brian. All MGM is doing is attempting to keep itself from getting sued for the massacre. And frankly, while I don't want any victims to have to deal with any of this, I think that is a reasonable thing to attempt on MGM's part. I don't think it's fair that any of the victims are trying to sue MGM for the massacre in the first place, and that is all this counter suit is about. I do understand that the law MGM is attempting to use here doesn't seem to apply because of the definition of terrorism.... But I still think MGM should not be held responsible for the massacre, and since MGM is getting sued for it, I think this was likely the only method they could think of to try and stop that injustice from happening, unfortunately for everyone.
I disagree. We don't know all of the details on if any policies weren't followed by the hotel and can't assume there wasn't some negligence. I don't feel bad for Mandalay Bay and think it's ridiculous how they're responding. As someone else already stated, they would never have to try every case if they were able to establish their grounds for dismissal in the first few. The cases would never make it to court unless they could identify some extenuating circumstance that made it different from the rest. From what I've heard, they already made some changes to certain policies to improve security moving forward, which lawyers often like to use as an indicator that they failed to properly protect the public and other patrons from harm in the first place.
There are people suing the hotel that were hurt by getting trampled in the concert venue.
The concert venue is not yet being sued. I'm sure that is next. Surely they are libel for not stopping a stampede of people?
Also you can make any argument in a court if you bend the law in your favor. It happen every day.
The nerve of those people letting themselves get shot at! I swear!
But that isn't what it's about at all. I noticed immediately that the news media is completely misrepresenting this for some reason, and that people are reacting exactly the way the news media appears to want them to... in the way you reacted, Brian. All MGM is doing is attempting to keep itself from getting sued for the massacre. And frankly, while I don't want any victims to have to deal with any of this, I think that is a reasonable thing to attempt on MGM's part. I don't think it's fair that any of the victims are trying to sue MGM for the massacre in the first place, and that is all this counter suit is about. I do understand that the law MGM is attempting to use here doesn't seem to apply because of the definition of terrorism.... But I still think MGM should not be held responsible for the massacre, and since MGM is getting sued for it, I think this was likely the only method they could think of to try and stop that injustice from happening, unfortunately for everyone.
I disagree. We don't know all of the details on if any policies weren't followed by the hotel and can't assume there wasn't some negligence. I don't feel bad for Mandalay Bay and think it's ridiculous how they're responding. As someone else already stated, they would never have to try every case if they were able to establish their grounds for dismissal in the first few. The cases would never make it to court unless they could identify some extenuating circumstance that made it different from the rest. From what I've heard, they already made some changes to certain policies to improve security moving forward, which lawyers often like to use as an indicator that they failed to properly protect the public and other patrons from harm in the first place.
I understand disagreeing with it, but I don't think it qualifies as ridiculous, considering the circumstances. It's just too bad that what seems to be their only real option to fight the law suits against them comes as what looks like retaliation against victims of a horrible attack (under the assumption that they genuinely feel they aren't at fault, and I have no reason to assume they don't). That really gets the emotions going against MGM. To be clear, I do not "feel bad" for MGM at all, although I do feel bad for Mandalay Bay staff in general.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The nerve of those people letting themselves get shot at! I swear!
But that isn't what it's about at all. I noticed immediately that the news media is completely misrepresenting this for some reason, and that people are reacting exactly the way the news media appears to want them to... in the way you reacted, Brian. All MGM is doing is attempting to keep itself from getting sued for the massacre. And frankly, while I don't want any victims to have to deal with any of this, I think that is a reasonable thing to attempt on MGM's part. I don't think it's fair that any of the victims are trying to sue MGM for the massacre in the first place, and that is all this counter suit is about. I do understand that the law MGM is attempting to use here doesn't seem to apply because of the definition of terrorism.... But I still think MGM should not be held responsible for the massacre, and since MGM is getting sued for it, I think this was likely the only method they could think of to try and stop that injustice from happening, unfortunately for everyone.
I disagree. We don't know all of the details on if any policies weren't followed by the hotel and can't assume there wasn't some negligence. I don't feel bad for Mandalay Bay and think it's ridiculous how they're responding. As someone else already stated, they would never have to try every case if they were able to establish their grounds for dismissal in the first few. The cases would never make it to court unless they could identify some extenuating circumstance that made it different from the rest. From what I've heard, they already made some changes to certain policies to improve security moving forward, which lawyers often like to use as an indicator that they failed to properly protect the public and other patrons from harm in the first place.
I understand disagreeing with it, but I don't think it qualifies as ridiculous, considering the circumstances. It's just too bad that what seems to be their only real option to fight the law suits against them comes as what looks like retaliation against victims of a horrible attack (under the assumption that they genuinely feel they aren't at fault, and I have no reason to assume they don't). That really gets the emotions going against MGM. To be clear, I do not "feel bad" for MGM at all, although I do feel bad for Mandalay Bay staff in general.
It isn’t their only option, it’s the option they chose to use. Their lawyer admits he had to dig hard to try to find a law that would allow them to try to get the suits banned, and that they are not at all sure that this law applies.
Their other option is to fight the suits in court, presenting their evidence as to why they are not responsible or negligent. If they are successful in the first few suits the others will likely be dropped, because if a party persists in a civil suit when there is little to no chance of success and they were offered the chance to drop the suit, they can be found liable for the other party’s legal fees.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
The nerve of those people letting themselves get shot at! I swear!
But that isn't what it's about at all. I noticed immediately that the news media is completely misrepresenting this for some reason, and that people are reacting exactly the way the news media appears to want them to... in the way you reacted, Brian. All MGM is doing is attempting to keep itself from getting sued for the massacre. And frankly, while I don't want any victims to have to deal with any of this, I think that is a reasonable thing to attempt on MGM's part. I don't think it's fair that any of the victims are trying to sue MGM for the massacre in the first place, and that is all this counter suit is about. I do understand that the law MGM is attempting to use here doesn't seem to apply because of the definition of terrorism.... But I still think MGM should not be held responsible for the massacre, and since MGM is getting sued for it, I think this was likely the only method they could think of to try and stop that injustice from happening, unfortunately for everyone.
I disagree. We don't know all of the details on if any policies weren't followed by the hotel and can't assume there wasn't some negligence. I don't feel bad for Mandalay Bay and think it's ridiculous how they're responding. As someone else already stated, they would never have to try every case if they were able to establish their grounds for dismissal in the first few. The cases would never make it to court unless they could identify some extenuating circumstance that made it different from the rest. From what I've heard, they already made some changes to certain policies to improve security moving forward, which lawyers often like to use as an indicator that they failed to properly protect the public and other patrons from harm in the first place.
There are people suing the hotel that were hurt by getting trampled in the concert venue.
The concert venue is not yet being sued. I'm sure that is next. Surely they are libel for not stopping a stampede of people?
Also you can make any argument in a court if you bend the law in your favor. It happen every day.
Why are they liable? Man too many lawsuits. This is nuts. We all know who is to blame for this. And it ain't the hotel nor the venue.
I wish the legal system had some common sense to weed out anything but gross negligence.
The nerve of those people letting themselves get shot at! I swear!
But that isn't what it's about at all. I noticed immediately that the news media is completely misrepresenting this for some reason, and that people are reacting exactly the way the news media appears to want them to... in the way you reacted, Brian. All MGM is doing is attempting to keep itself from getting sued for the massacre. And frankly, while I don't want any victims to have to deal with any of this, I think that is a reasonable thing to attempt on MGM's part. I don't think it's fair that any of the victims are trying to sue MGM for the massacre in the first place, and that is all this counter suit is about. I do understand that the law MGM is attempting to use here doesn't seem to apply because of the definition of terrorism.... But I still think MGM should not be held responsible for the massacre, and since MGM is getting sued for it, I think this was likely the only method they could think of to try and stop that injustice from happening, unfortunately for everyone.
I disagree. We don't know all of the details on if any policies weren't followed by the hotel and can't assume there wasn't some negligence. I don't feel bad for Mandalay Bay and think it's ridiculous how they're responding. As someone else already stated, they would never have to try every case if they were able to establish their grounds for dismissal in the first few. The cases would never make it to court unless they could identify some extenuating circumstance that made it different from the rest. From what I've heard, they already made some changes to certain policies to improve security moving forward, which lawyers often like to use as an indicator that they failed to properly protect the public and other patrons from harm in the first place.
There are people suing the hotel that were hurt by getting trampled in the concert venue.
The concert venue is not yet being sued. I'm sure that is next. Surely they are libel for not stopping a stampede of people?
Also you can make any argument in a court if you bend the law in your favor. It happen every day.
Why are they liable? Man too many lawsuits. This is nuts. We all know who is to blame for this. And it ain't the hotel nor the venue.
I wish the legal system had some common sense to weed out anything but gross negligence.
Most of the time now a judge will hear the motion.
Can you imagine if this was brought up to a judge and he threw it out immediately? There would have been an even bigger uproar about it.
It's on the docket now and the higher courts can throw it out.
The nerve of those people letting themselves get shot at! I swear!
But that isn't what it's about at all. I noticed immediately that the news media is completely misrepresenting this for some reason, and that people are reacting exactly the way the news media appears to want them to... in the way you reacted, Brian. All MGM is doing is attempting to keep itself from getting sued for the massacre. And frankly, while I don't want any victims to have to deal with any of this, I think that is a reasonable thing to attempt on MGM's part. I don't think it's fair that any of the victims are trying to sue MGM for the massacre in the first place, and that is all this counter suit is about. I do understand that the law MGM is attempting to use here doesn't seem to apply because of the definition of terrorism.... But I still think MGM should not be held responsible for the massacre, and since MGM is getting sued for it, I think this was likely the only method they could think of to try and stop that injustice from happening, unfortunately for everyone.
I disagree. We don't know all of the details on if any policies weren't followed by the hotel and can't assume there wasn't some negligence. I don't feel bad for Mandalay Bay and think it's ridiculous how they're responding. As someone else already stated, they would never have to try every case if they were able to establish their grounds for dismissal in the first few. The cases would never make it to court unless they could identify some extenuating circumstance that made it different from the rest. From what I've heard, they already made some changes to certain policies to improve security moving forward, which lawyers often like to use as an indicator that they failed to properly protect the public and other patrons from harm in the first place.
I understand disagreeing with it, but I don't think it qualifies as ridiculous, considering the circumstances. It's just too bad that what seems to be their only real option to fight the law suits against them comes as what looks like retaliation against victims of a horrible attack (under the assumption that they genuinely feel they aren't at fault, and I have no reason to assume they don't). That really gets the emotions going against MGM. To be clear, I do not "feel bad" for MGM at all, although I do feel bad for Mandalay Bay staff in general.
It isn’t their only option, it’s the option they chose to use. Their lawyer admits he had to dig hard to try to find a law that would allow them to try to get the suits banned, and that they are not at all sure that this law applies.
Their other option is to fight the suits in court, presenting their evidence as to why they are not responsible or negligent. If they are successful in the first few suits the others will likely be dropped, because if a party persists in a civil suit when there is little to no chance of success and they were offered the chance to drop the suit, they can be found liable for the other party’s legal fees.
I meant it is their only option to keep the law suits from going forward. I'm really just not too sure why people expect them to not make that attempt. If their lawyers can possibly find a way to avoid going to court, then why wouldn't they? Wouldn't the lawyers not be doing their jobs to the best of their abilities if they didn't at least try to prevent that?? Why in the world would corporate lawyers want to fight law suits in court and present evidence if they could find a way to avoid doing any of that via a legal loophole? I'm just looking at it objectively.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The nerve of those people letting themselves get shot at! I swear!
But that isn't what it's about at all. I noticed immediately that the news media is completely misrepresenting this for some reason, and that people are reacting exactly the way the news media appears to want them to... in the way you reacted, Brian. All MGM is doing is attempting to keep itself from getting sued for the massacre. And frankly, while I don't want any victims to have to deal with any of this, I think that is a reasonable thing to attempt on MGM's part. I don't think it's fair that any of the victims are trying to sue MGM for the massacre in the first place, and that is all this counter suit is about. I do understand that the law MGM is attempting to use here doesn't seem to apply because of the definition of terrorism.... But I still think MGM should not be held responsible for the massacre, and since MGM is getting sued for it, I think this was likely the only method they could think of to try and stop that injustice from happening, unfortunately for everyone.
I disagree. We don't know all of the details on if any policies weren't followed by the hotel and can't assume there wasn't some negligence. I don't feel bad for Mandalay Bay and think it's ridiculous how they're responding. As someone else already stated, they would never have to try every case if they were able to establish their grounds for dismissal in the first few. The cases would never make it to court unless they could identify some extenuating circumstance that made it different from the rest. From what I've heard, they already made some changes to certain policies to improve security moving forward, which lawyers often like to use as an indicator that they failed to properly protect the public and other patrons from harm in the first place.
I understand disagreeing with it, but I don't think it qualifies as ridiculous, considering the circumstances. It's just too bad that what seems to be their only real option to fight the law suits against them comes as what looks like retaliation against victims of a horrible attack (under the assumption that they genuinely feel they aren't at fault, and I have no reason to assume they don't). That really gets the emotions going against MGM. To be clear, I do not "feel bad" for MGM at all, although I do feel bad for Mandalay Bay staff in general.
It isn’t their only option, it’s the option they chose to use. Their lawyer admits he had to dig hard to try to find a law that would allow them to try to get the suits banned, and that they are not at all sure that this law applies.
Their other option is to fight the suits in court, presenting their evidence as to why they are not responsible or negligent. If they are successful in the first few suits the others will likely be dropped, because if a party persists in a civil suit when there is little to no chance of success and they were offered the chance to drop the suit, they can be found liable for the other party’s legal fees.
I meant it is their only option to keep the law suits from going forward. I'm really just not too sure why people expect them to not make that attempt. If their lawyers can possibly find a way to avoid going to court, then why wouldn't they? Wouldn't the lawyers not be doing their jobs to the best of their abilities if they didn't at least try to prevent that?? Why in the world would corporate lawyers want to fight law suits in court and present evidence if they could find a way to avoid doing any of that via a legal loophole? I'm just looking at it objectively.
Well, yeah, but that doesn’t shield them from public censure for doing it.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
The nerve of those people letting themselves get shot at! I swear!
But that isn't what it's about at all. I noticed immediately that the news media is completely misrepresenting this for some reason, and that people are reacting exactly the way the news media appears to want them to... in the way you reacted, Brian. All MGM is doing is attempting to keep itself from getting sued for the massacre. And frankly, while I don't want any victims to have to deal with any of this, I think that is a reasonable thing to attempt on MGM's part. I don't think it's fair that any of the victims are trying to sue MGM for the massacre in the first place, and that is all this counter suit is about. I do understand that the law MGM is attempting to use here doesn't seem to apply because of the definition of terrorism.... But I still think MGM should not be held responsible for the massacre, and since MGM is getting sued for it, I think this was likely the only method they could think of to try and stop that injustice from happening, unfortunately for everyone.
I disagree. We don't know all of the details on if any policies weren't followed by the hotel and can't assume there wasn't some negligence. I don't feel bad for Mandalay Bay and think it's ridiculous how they're responding. As someone else already stated, they would never have to try every case if they were able to establish their grounds for dismissal in the first few. The cases would never make it to court unless they could identify some extenuating circumstance that made it different from the rest. From what I've heard, they already made some changes to certain policies to improve security moving forward, which lawyers often like to use as an indicator that they failed to properly protect the public and other patrons from harm in the first place.
I understand disagreeing with it, but I don't think it qualifies as ridiculous, considering the circumstances. It's just too bad that what seems to be their only real option to fight the law suits against them comes as what looks like retaliation against victims of a horrible attack (under the assumption that they genuinely feel they aren't at fault, and I have no reason to assume they don't). That really gets the emotions going against MGM. To be clear, I do not "feel bad" for MGM at all, although I do feel bad for Mandalay Bay staff in general.
It isn’t their only option, it’s the option they chose to use. Their lawyer admits he had to dig hard to try to find a law that would allow them to try to get the suits banned, and that they are not at all sure that this law applies.
Their other option is to fight the suits in court, presenting their evidence as to why they are not responsible or negligent. If they are successful in the first few suits the others will likely be dropped, because if a party persists in a civil suit when there is little to no chance of success and they were offered the chance to drop the suit, they can be found liable for the other party’s legal fees.
I meant it is their only option to keep the law suits from going forward. I'm really just not too sure why people expect them to not make that attempt. If their lawyers can possibly find a way to avoid going to court, then why wouldn't they? Wouldn't the lawyers not be doing their jobs to the best of their abilities if they didn't at least try to prevent that?? Why in the world would corporate lawyers want to fight law suits in court and present evidence if they could find a way to avoid doing any of that via a legal loophole? I'm just looking at it objectively.
Well, yeah, but that doesn’t shield them from public censure for doing it.
No... I just also happen to be of the opinion that those suing the hotel are in the wrong in the first place, all things considered. But I figure that has no impact on the fact that MGM's lawyers are just doing their jobs properly. And I still think the new media is presenting the story in a really biased way.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The nerve of those people letting themselves get shot at! I swear!
But that isn't what it's about at all. I noticed immediately that the news media is completely misrepresenting this for some reason, and that people are reacting exactly the way the news media appears to want them to... in the way you reacted, Brian. All MGM is doing is attempting to keep itself from getting sued for the massacre. And frankly, while I don't want any victims to have to deal with any of this, I think that is a reasonable thing to attempt on MGM's part. I don't think it's fair that any of the victims are trying to sue MGM for the massacre in the first place, and that is all this counter suit is about. I do understand that the law MGM is attempting to use here doesn't seem to apply because of the definition of terrorism.... But I still think MGM should not be held responsible for the massacre, and since MGM is getting sued for it, I think this was likely the only method they could think of to try and stop that injustice from happening, unfortunately for everyone.
I disagree. We don't know all of the details on if any policies weren't followed by the hotel and can't assume there wasn't some negligence. I don't feel bad for Mandalay Bay and think it's ridiculous how they're responding. As someone else already stated, they would never have to try every case if they were able to establish their grounds for dismissal in the first few. The cases would never make it to court unless they could identify some extenuating circumstance that made it different from the rest. From what I've heard, they already made some changes to certain policies to improve security moving forward, which lawyers often like to use as an indicator that they failed to properly protect the public and other patrons from harm in the first place.
I understand disagreeing with it, but I don't think it qualifies as ridiculous, considering the circumstances. It's just too bad that what seems to be their only real option to fight the law suits against them comes as what looks like retaliation against victims of a horrible attack (under the assumption that they genuinely feel they aren't at fault, and I have no reason to assume they don't). That really gets the emotions going against MGM. To be clear, I do not "feel bad" for MGM at all, although I do feel bad for Mandalay Bay staff in general.
It isn’t their only option, it’s the option they chose to use. Their lawyer admits he had to dig hard to try to find a law that would allow them to try to get the suits banned, and that they are not at all sure that this law applies.
Their other option is to fight the suits in court, presenting their evidence as to why they are not responsible or negligent. If they are successful in the first few suits the others will likely be dropped, because if a party persists in a civil suit when there is little to no chance of success and they were offered the chance to drop the suit, they can be found liable for the other party’s legal fees.
I meant it is their only option to keep the law suits from going forward. I'm really just not too sure why people expect them to not make that attempt. If their lawyers can possibly find a way to avoid going to court, then why wouldn't they? Wouldn't the lawyers not be doing their jobs to the best of their abilities if they didn't at least try to prevent that?? Why in the world would corporate lawyers want to fight law suits in court and present evidence if they could find a way to avoid doing any of that via a legal loophole? I'm just looking at it objectively.
I hear what you're saying. It's lawyers being lawyers, but they wouldn't have a job if people didn't exist to find loopholes on both sides. Hell, we elected the king of legal loopholes and shenanigans. Even though lawyers get paid to do this type of shady work everyday, this just seems like poor judgement in a last ditch effort to avoid court. All this does is distract from the real issue; guns, but since that issue is never going to get resolved we're stuck with a pissing contest on the appropriate levels of security and safety wherever the next shooting takes place.
From a personal view, I could never see suing the hotel as a means to seek justice, but I am also not someone directly impacted by the shooting besides the implications it has on future events and necessary safety measures that come about from this incident. If I felt the hotel didn't properly provide security and I was in some way a victim or family member of a victim, I might reconsider my stance. There probably are people just jumping on board for a possible pay out, but I'm sure several really do believe that the hotel was negligent when it allowed the shooter to use their facility in the way he did. This is a really unique situation. All of the factors tilt this more towards something that has identified some major issues with hotel security.
The nerve of those people letting themselves get shot at! I swear!
But that isn't what it's about at all. I noticed immediately that the news media is completely misrepresenting this for some reason, and that people are reacting exactly the way the news media appears to want them to... in the way you reacted, Brian. All MGM is doing is attempting to keep itself from getting sued for the massacre. And frankly, while I don't want any victims to have to deal with any of this, I think that is a reasonable thing to attempt on MGM's part. I don't think it's fair that any of the victims are trying to sue MGM for the massacre in the first place, and that is all this counter suit is about. I do understand that the law MGM is attempting to use here doesn't seem to apply because of the definition of terrorism.... But I still think MGM should not be held responsible for the massacre, and since MGM is getting sued for it, I think this was likely the only method they could think of to try and stop that injustice from happening, unfortunately for everyone.
I disagree. We don't know all of the details on if any policies weren't followed by the hotel and can't assume there wasn't some negligence. I don't feel bad for Mandalay Bay and think it's ridiculous how they're responding. As someone else already stated, they would never have to try every case if they were able to establish their grounds for dismissal in the first few. The cases would never make it to court unless they could identify some extenuating circumstance that made it different from the rest. From what I've heard, they already made some changes to certain policies to improve security moving forward, which lawyers often like to use as an indicator that they failed to properly protect the public and other patrons from harm in the first place.
I understand disagreeing with it, but I don't think it qualifies as ridiculous, considering the circumstances. It's just too bad that what seems to be their only real option to fight the law suits against them comes as what looks like retaliation against victims of a horrible attack (under the assumption that they genuinely feel they aren't at fault, and I have no reason to assume they don't). That really gets the emotions going against MGM. To be clear, I do not "feel bad" for MGM at all, although I do feel bad for Mandalay Bay staff in general.
It isn’t their only option, it’s the option they chose to use. Their lawyer admits he had to dig hard to try to find a law that would allow them to try to get the suits banned, and that they are not at all sure that this law applies.
Their other option is to fight the suits in court, presenting their evidence as to why they are not responsible or negligent. If they are successful in the first few suits the others will likely be dropped, because if a party persists in a civil suit when there is little to no chance of success and they were offered the chance to drop the suit, they can be found liable for the other party’s legal fees.
I meant it is their only option to keep the law suits from going forward. I'm really just not too sure why people expect them to not make that attempt. If their lawyers can possibly find a way to avoid going to court, then why wouldn't they? Wouldn't the lawyers not be doing their jobs to the best of their abilities if they didn't at least try to prevent that?? Why in the world would corporate lawyers want to fight law suits in court and present evidence if they could find a way to avoid doing any of that via a legal loophole? I'm just looking at it objectively.
I hear what you're saying. It's lawyers being lawyers, but they wouldn't have a job if people didn't exist to find loopholes on both sides. Hell, we elected the king of legal loopholes and shenanigans. Even though lawyers get paid to do this type of shady work everyday, this just seems like poor judgement in a last ditch effort to avoid court. All this does is distract from the real issue; guns, but since that issue is never going to get resolved we're stuck with a pissing contest on the appropriate levels of security and safety wherever the next shooting takes place.
From a personal view, I could never see suing the hotel as a means to seek justice, but I am also not someone directly impacted by the shooting besides the implications it has on future events and necessary safety measures that come about from this incident. If I felt the hotel didn't properly provide security and I was in some way a victim or family member of a victim, I might reconsider my stance. There probably are people just jumping on board for a possible pay out, but I'm sure several really do believe that the hotel was negligent when it allowed the shooter to use their facility in the way he did. This is a really unique situation. All of the factors tilt this more towards something that has identified some major issues with hotel security.
I dunno... How could this guy have been prevented from doing what he did by the hotel? He could have brought those guns up to his room in any number of ways, in bags. The only measures I can think of that would have ultimately prevented him from committing this crime would be measures that grossly violate our privacy in hotels. I know I'm not willing to have hotels go through my bags or inspect my room fore contraband or anything like that, and obviously metal detectors in hotels is unworkable as well. Does anyone seriously want airport-level security at hotels?? Even if the hotel technically failed in a few areas, anyone could get around any conceivable measures currently in place either way. Of course none of this has to do with the actual suit MGM is going for here, but it certainly is related to the position of MGM in terms of the law suits against them attitude-wise, or emotionally, so I guess it's relevant, since the reaction to MGM here is 100% emotional as well.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Does anyone remember the attacks in Mumbai? It’s not like it was outside the realm of possibilities. More than likely it’s the insurance company taking the lead as they’d eventually pay out.
I agree with PJ’s comments, being completely misrepresented by the media. When I first saw the title I was shocked, then I read it and it seems totally reasonable. Of they in fact were negligent, then in theory they’d lose this suit and the rest will follow. I don’t see how this is anything that big of a deal.
I agree with PJ’s comments, being completely misrepresented by the media. When I first saw the title I was shocked, then I read it and it seems totally reasonable. Of they in fact were negligent, then in theory they’d lose this suit and the rest will follow. I don’t see how this is anything that big of a deal.
Except that is not what the suit is about. The issue in this suit isn’t whether they are negligent or not, it’s whether the suits to determine negligence can go ahead or not. They don’t have to prove they are not, they just have to argue that this law shields them from having to show any proof at all. They could be flagrantly negligent but if they win this case it won’t matter.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,297
I agree with PJ’s comments, being completely misrepresented by the media. When I first saw the title I was shocked, then I read it and it seems totally reasonable. Of they in fact were negligent, then in theory they’d lose this suit and the rest will follow. I don’t see how this is anything that big of a deal.
Except that is not what the suit is about. The issue in this suit isn’t whether they are negligent or not, it’s whether the suits to determine negligence can go ahead or not. They don’t have to prove they are not, they just have to argue that this law shields them from having to show any proof at all. They could be flagrantly negligent but if they win this case it won’t matter.
Well said. That's what it looks like to me. Bury it before anybody gets a chance to find the truth- which ever way that may go.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
The nerve of those people letting themselves get shot at! I swear!
But that isn't what it's about at all. I noticed immediately that the news media is completely misrepresenting this for some reason, and that people are reacting exactly the way the news media appears to want them to... in the way you reacted, Brian. All MGM is doing is attempting to keep itself from getting sued for the massacre. And frankly, while I don't want any victims to have to deal with any of this, I think that is a reasonable thing to attempt on MGM's part. I don't think it's fair that any of the victims are trying to sue MGM for the massacre in the first place, and that is all this counter suit is about. I do understand that the law MGM is attempting to use here doesn't seem to apply because of the definition of terrorism.... But I still think MGM should not be held responsible for the massacre, and since MGM is getting sued for it, I think this was likely the only method they could think of to try and stop that injustice from happening, unfortunately for everyone.
I disagree. We don't know all of the details on if any policies weren't followed by the hotel and can't assume there wasn't some negligence. I don't feel bad for Mandalay Bay and think it's ridiculous how they're responding. As someone else already stated, they would never have to try every case if they were able to establish their grounds for dismissal in the first few. The cases would never make it to court unless they could identify some extenuating circumstance that made it different from the rest. From what I've heard, they already made some changes to certain policies to improve security moving forward, which lawyers often like to use as an indicator that they failed to properly protect the public and other patrons from harm in the first place.
I understand disagreeing with it, but I don't think it qualifies as ridiculous, considering the circumstances. It's just too bad that what seems to be their only real option to fight the law suits against them comes as what looks like retaliation against victims of a horrible attack (under the assumption that they genuinely feel they aren't at fault, and I have no reason to assume they don't). That really gets the emotions going against MGM. To be clear, I do not "feel bad" for MGM at all, although I do feel bad for Mandalay Bay staff in general.
It isn’t their only option, it’s the option they chose to use. Their lawyer admits he had to dig hard to try to find a law that would allow them to try to get the suits banned, and that they are not at all sure that this law applies.
Their other option is to fight the suits in court, presenting their evidence as to why they are not responsible or negligent. If they are successful in the first few suits the others will likely be dropped, because if a party persists in a civil suit when there is little to no chance of success and they were offered the chance to drop the suit, they can be found liable for the other party’s legal fees.
I meant it is their only option to keep the law suits from going forward. I'm really just not too sure why people expect them to not make that attempt. If their lawyers can possibly find a way to avoid going to court, then why wouldn't they? Wouldn't the lawyers not be doing their jobs to the best of their abilities if they didn't at least try to prevent that?? Why in the world would corporate lawyers want to fight law suits in court and present evidence if they could find a way to avoid doing any of that via a legal loophole? I'm just looking at it objectively.
Well, yeah, but that doesn’t shield them from public censure for doing it.
No... I just also happen to be of the opinion that those suing the hotel are in the wrong in the first place, all things considered. But I figure that has no impact on the fact that MGM's lawyers are just doing their jobs properly. And I still think the new media is presenting the story in a really biased way.
Then let a judge or jury tell them they are wrong...
Comments
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/17/us/mgm-resorts-sues-victims.html
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Only in America.. really..
I still get amazed about getting amazed about these kind of newsflashes. There is no boundaries in what is possible.
If a lawsuit like this actually goes through where the hotel is liable then it will set a precedent and snowball out of control.
The hotel can be charged, the concert venue can be charged, gun manufacturers can be charged, the city could be charged, so on and so forth.
With all this being said the Hotel should do some sort of saving face and pay for doctors bills or try and file it under their insurance.
Thinking more about this there won't be any silver lining from any of this...
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
The courts sort out these types of issues all the time. If the first couple of suits failed, then the odds are high that the others would be withdrawn. They won’t have to individually defend against hundreds of suits. However, if the suits are barred, then we’ll never hear the evidence as to whether they were negligent or not.
The concert venue is not yet being sued. I'm sure that is next. Surely they are libel for not stopping a stampede of people?
Also you can make any argument in a court if you bend the law in your favor. It happen every day.
Their other option is to fight the suits in court, presenting their evidence as to why they are not responsible or negligent. If they are successful in the first few suits the others will likely be dropped, because if a party persists in a civil suit when there is little to no chance of success and they were offered the chance to drop the suit, they can be found liable for the other party’s legal fees.
I wish the legal system had some common sense to weed out anything but gross negligence.
Can you imagine if this was brought up to a judge and he threw it out immediately? There would have been an even bigger uproar about it.
It's on the docket now and the higher courts can throw it out.
From a personal view, I could never see suing the hotel as a means to seek justice, but I am also not someone directly impacted by the shooting besides the implications it has on future events and necessary safety measures that come about from this incident. If I felt the hotel didn't properly provide security and I was in some way a victim or family member of a victim, I might reconsider my stance. There probably are people just jumping on board for a possible pay out, but I'm sure several really do believe that the hotel was negligent when it allowed the shooter to use their facility in the way he did. This is a really unique situation. All of the factors tilt this more towards something that has identified some major issues with hotel security.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Of they in fact were negligent, then in theory they’d lose this suit and the rest will follow. I don’t see how this is anything that big of a deal.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"