Las Vegas massacre.

1789101113»

Comments

  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 3,836

    brianlux said:
    mace1229 said:
    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.
    Very true.  It does make you wonder if they are hiding something.
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 25,826

    brianlux said:
    mace1229 said:
    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.
    Very true.  It does make you wonder if they are hiding something.
    Could be!  That and/ or it's about them protecting assets which they might be prone to done even if they did screw something up.
    "Love and only love will break it down"
    -Neil Young
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.





  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 3,836
    brianlux said:

    brianlux said:
    mace1229 said:
    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.
    Very true.  It does make you wonder if they are hiding something.
    Could be!  That and/ or it's about them protecting assets which they might be prone to done even if they did screw something up.
    Thats why I don'e see harm in letting the first few cases proceed tp trial...
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 25,826
    brianlux said:

    brianlux said:
    mace1229 said:
    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.
    Very true.  It does make you wonder if they are hiding something.
    Could be!  That and/ or it's about them protecting assets which they might be prone to done even if they did screw something up.
    Thats why I don'e see harm in letting the first few cases proceed tp trial...
    Seems like the right thing to me too.
    "Love and only love will break it down"
    -Neil Young
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.





  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 3,836
    brianlux said:
    brianlux said:

    brianlux said:
    mace1229 said:
    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.
    Very true.  It does make you wonder if they are hiding something.
    Could be!  That and/ or it's about them protecting assets which they might be prone to done even if they did screw something up.
    Thats why I don'e see harm in letting the first few cases proceed tp trial...
    Seems like the right thing to me too.
    And in reality, none of us here know if they have a case or not.  
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 16,109
    America... land of litigation

    What's the difference between a porcupine and a BMW full of lawyers?

    The porcupine has the pricks on the outside :)
  • dudemandudeman Posts: 1,815
    Wait a minute, I thought the shooter, the NRA and all of the gun owners were responsible, not the hotel.
    If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 16,022
    dudeman said:
    Wait a minute, I thought the shooter, the NRA and all of the gun owners were responsible, not the hotel.
    That will be the following lawsuit.
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 14,350
    dudeman said:
    Wait a minute, I thought the shooter, the NRA and all of the gun owners were responsible, not the hotel.
    you forgot congress, but they cant be sued.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    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
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 44,711
    edited July 2018
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    tbergs said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    brianlux said:
    tbergs said:
    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...
    Um, that's what is happening, isn't it? It's not like the lawyers are just proclaiming anything. They are filing their own suit precisely so that the justice system can make a determination as to how they will proceed.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 3,836
    That's not really what's happening.  They want to stop legal action before these victims lawyer can sift through the evidence...
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 44,711
    That's not really what's happening.  They want to stop legal action before these victims lawyer can sift through the evidence...
    I know, and the justice system will be deciding if they can or not. That's how it's supposed to happen.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 3,134
    mace1229 said:
    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. 
    That’s not how I understood it to be.
    i understood it’s a suit that will show they are not liable in the event of a terrorist act, and therefore no lawsuits can be filed against them.
    Its not like they file this suit and no one sued, they still have to prove a case and win, that’s why I don’t get the uproar. And if they win, then I’m assuming all those individual cases would not have won, right? And if they lose, that just opens the door. So what’s the difference?
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 44,711
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    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. 
    That’s not how I understood it to be.
    i understood it’s a suit that will show they are not liable in the event of a terrorist act, and therefore no lawsuits can be filed against them.
    Its not like they file this suit and no one sued, they still have to prove a case and win, that’s why I don’t get the uproar. And if they win, then I’m assuming all those individual cases would not have won, right? And if they lose, that just opens the door. So what’s the difference?
    You're both basically saying the same thing in different ways, haha, and you're both right. I definitely do not take this move to be some kind of admission of negligence btw.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,209
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    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. 
    That’s not how I understood it to be.
    i understood it’s a suit that will show they are not liable in the event of a terrorist act, and therefore no lawsuits can be filed against them.
    Its not like they file this suit and no one sued, they still have to prove a case and win, that’s why I don’t get the uproar. And if they win, then I’m assuming all those individual cases would not have won, right? And if they lose, that just opens the door. So what’s the difference?
     No. Whether or not they win this suit has no bearing on whether the suits against them have any merit. It is two completely separate legal questions. That’s why your statement “if they win, then I’m assuming that all those individual cases would not have won” is wrong. They might win and still have been negligent; it just means it never even gets to that stage. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,209
    PJ_Soul said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    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. 
    That’s not how I understood it to be.
    i understood it’s a suit that will show they are not liable in the event of a terrorist act, and therefore no lawsuits can be filed against them.
    Its not like they file this suit and no one sued, they still have to prove a case and win, that’s why I don’t get the uproar. And if they win, then I’m assuming all those individual cases would not have won, right? And if they lose, that just opens the door. So what’s the difference?
    You're both basically saying the same thing in different ways, haha, and you're both right. I definitely do not take this move to be some kind of admission of negligence btw.
    No, we’re not. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 44,711
    PJ_Soul said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    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. 
    That’s not how I understood it to be.
    i understood it’s a suit that will show they are not liable in the event of a terrorist act, and therefore no lawsuits can be filed against them.
    Its not like they file this suit and no one sued, they still have to prove a case and win, that’s why I don’t get the uproar. And if they win, then I’m assuming all those individual cases would not have won, right? And if they lose, that just opens the door. So what’s the difference?
    You're both basically saying the same thing in different ways, haha, and you're both right. I definitely do not take this move to be some kind of admission of negligence btw.
    No, we’re not. 
    Seems that way. The suit is indeed about them arguing that the terrorism law shields them from the lawsuits against them. That is what mace is saying too from what I can tell - the lawsuit is meant to show that they are not liable because of that law and therefore no lawsuits can be filed against them. :confused:
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,209
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    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. 
    That’s not how I understood it to be.
    i understood it’s a suit that will show they are not liable in the event of a terrorist act, and therefore no lawsuits can be filed against them.
    Its not like they file this suit and no one sued, they still have to prove a case and win, that’s why I don’t get the uproar. And if they win, then I’m assuming all those individual cases would not have won, right? And if they lose, that just opens the door. So what’s the difference?
    You're both basically saying the same thing in different ways, haha, and you're both right. I definitely do not take this move to be some kind of admission of negligence btw.
    No, we’re not. 
    Seems that way. The suit is indeed about them arguing that the terrorism law shields them from the lawsuits against them. That is what mace is saying too from what I can tell - the lawsuit is meant to show that they are not liable because of that law and therefore no lawsuits can be filed against them. :confused:
    That part is the same, yes. The part that isn’t is the assumption that if MGM wins it means that the other suits did not have merit.  It doesn’t, because it doesn’t address that issue at all. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 44,711
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    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. 
    That’s not how I understood it to be.
    i understood it’s a suit that will show they are not liable in the event of a terrorist act, and therefore no lawsuits can be filed against them.
    Its not like they file this suit and no one sued, they still have to prove a case and win, that’s why I don’t get the uproar. And if they win, then I’m assuming all those individual cases would not have won, right? And if they lose, that just opens the door. So what’s the difference?
    You're both basically saying the same thing in different ways, haha, and you're both right. I definitely do not take this move to be some kind of admission of negligence btw.
    No, we’re not. 
    Seems that way. The suit is indeed about them arguing that the terrorism law shields them from the lawsuits against them. That is what mace is saying too from what I can tell - the lawsuit is meant to show that they are not liable because of that law and therefore no lawsuits can be filed against them. :confused:
    That part is the same, yes. The part that isn’t is the assumption that if MGM wins it means that the other suits did not have merit.  It doesn’t, because it doesn’t address that issue at all. 
    Oh I see where you're coming now. I didn't take what he was saying like that. Just that there's no difference either way as far as the results go.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 3,134
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    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. 
    That’s not how I understood it to be.
    i understood it’s a suit that will show they are not liable in the event of a terrorist act, and therefore no lawsuits can be filed against them.
    Its not like they file this suit and no one sued, they still have to prove a case and win, that’s why I don’t get the uproar. And if they win, then I’m assuming all those individual cases would not have won, right? And if they lose, that just opens the door. So what’s the difference?
     No. Whether or not they win this suit has no bearing on whether the suits against them have any merit. It is two completely separate legal questions. That’s why your statement “if they win, then I’m assuming that all those individual cases would not have won” is wrong. They might win and still have been negligent; it just means it never even gets to that stage. 
    Okay, let’s say MGM wins, judge rules they are not liable for terrorist acts.
    Why would that defense not hold on on the individual level? They get sued 1000 times, why would it make a difference then? Why would they still not claim they are not responsible for terrorists acts and why would the same law not still apply? That’s what I don’t understand.
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,209
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    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. 
    That’s not how I understood it to be.
    i understood it’s a suit that will show they are not liable in the event of a terrorist act, and therefore no lawsuits can be filed against them.
    Its not like they file this suit and no one sued, they still have to prove a case and win, that’s why I don’t get the uproar. And if they win, then I’m assuming all those individual cases would not have won, right? And if they lose, that just opens the door. So what’s the difference?
     No. Whether or not they win this suit has no bearing on whether the suits against them have any merit. It is two completely separate legal questions. That’s why your statement “if they win, then I’m assuming that all those individual cases would not have won” is wrong. They might win and still have been negligent; it just means it never even gets to that stage. 
    Okay, let’s say MGM wins, judge rules they are not liable for terrorist acts.
    Why would that defense not hold on on the individual level? They get sued 1000 times, why would it make a difference then? Why would they still not claim they are not responsible for terrorists acts and why would the same law not still apply? That’s what I don’t understand.

    I'm not sure I can explain it any more clearly. You're right that if MGM wins this suit then, as you say, "the defense wins on the individual level", but that's not the same as what you said when you said "the individual cases would not have won". Perhaps you didn't mean that the way it sounds, but saying "the individual cases would not have won" suggests that individually they didn't have merit and so they wouldn't have won, but that's not the decision being made.

    Giving it one more try - if MGM wins the legal strategy they are trying right now, it means that they can't be held legally responsible for these actions "just because", so to speak; they can't be sued for them, just because. That doesn't mean that they weren't actually negligent, it just means they can't be found legally negligent. 

    Alternately, if MGM loses/is told they can't even attempt this legal strategy, then individual suits against them can proceed and someone, judge or jury, can look at evidence to determine if they actually were negligent. 

    I favour the second option. We have no idea if they were negligent. Certainly, they might not have been; maybe there's nothing more than could have been done, but maybe they were negligent. In either case, it's good to look at the evidence instead of summarily dismissing it. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 25,826
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    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. 
    That’s not how I understood it to be.
    i understood it’s a suit that will show they are not liable in the event of a terrorist act, and therefore no lawsuits can be filed against them.
    Its not like they file this suit and no one sued, they still have to prove a case and win, that’s why I don’t get the uproar. And if they win, then I’m assuming all those individual cases would not have won, right? And if they lose, that just opens the door. So what’s the difference?
     No. Whether or not they win this suit has no bearing on whether the suits against them have any merit. It is two completely separate legal questions. That’s why your statement “if they win, then I’m assuming that all those individual cases would not have won” is wrong. They might win and still have been negligent; it just means it never even gets to that stage. 
    Okay, let’s say MGM wins, judge rules they are not liable for terrorist acts.
    Why would that defense not hold on on the individual level? They get sued 1000 times, why would it make a difference then? Why would they still not claim they are not responsible for terrorists acts and why would the same law not still apply? That’s what I don’t understand.

    I'm not sure I can explain it any more clearly. You're right that if MGM wins this suit then, as you say, "the defense wins on the individual level", but that's not the same as what you said when you said "the individual cases would not have won". Perhaps you didn't mean that the way it sounds, but saying "the individual cases would not have won" suggests that individually they didn't have merit and so they wouldn't have won, but that's not the decision being made.

    Giving it one more try - if MGM wins the legal strategy they are trying right now, it means that they can't be held legally responsible for these actions "just because", so to speak; they can't be sued for them, just because. That doesn't mean that they weren't actually negligent, it just means they can't be found legally negligent. 

    Alternately, if MGM loses/is told they can't even attempt this legal strategy, then individual suits against them can proceed and someone, judge or jury, can look at evidence to determine if they actually were negligent. 

    I favour the second option. We have no idea if they were negligent. Certainly, they might not have been; maybe there's nothing more than could have been done, but maybe they were negligent. In either case, it's good to look at the evidence instead of summarily dismissing it. 
    I totally agree.  Anything else is an obstruction of justice, something big rich corporations excel at.
    "Love and only love will break it down"
    -Neil Young
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.





  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 10,893
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    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. 
    That’s not how I understood it to be.
    i understood it’s a suit that will show they are not liable in the event of a terrorist act, and therefore no lawsuits can be filed against them.
    Its not like they file this suit and no one sued, they still have to prove a case and win, that’s why I don’t get the uproar. And if they win, then I’m assuming all those individual cases would not have won, right? And if they lose, that just opens the door. So what’s the difference?
    You're both basically saying the same thing in different ways, haha, and you're both right. I definitely do not take this move to be some kind of admission of negligence btw.
    No, we’re not. 
    Seems that way. The suit is indeed about them arguing that the terrorism law shields them from the lawsuits against them. That is what mace is saying too from what I can tell - the lawsuit is meant to show that they are not liable because of that law and therefore no lawsuits can be filed against them. :confused:
    That part is the same, yes. The part that isn’t is the assumption that if MGM wins it means that the other suits did not have merit.  It doesn’t, because it doesn’t address that issue at all. 
    Wait...if they are found to be protected by the terrorism law ... doesn’t that mean that the other lawsuits have no merit because the company cannot be negligent when it comes to terrorist acts?
    hippiemom = goodness
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 44,711
    edited July 2018
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    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. 
    That’s not how I understood it to be.
    i understood it’s a suit that will show they are not liable in the event of a terrorist act, and therefore no lawsuits can be filed against them.
    Its not like they file this suit and no one sued, they still have to prove a case and win, that’s why I don’t get the uproar. And if they win, then I’m assuming all those individual cases would not have won, right? And if they lose, that just opens the door. So what’s the difference?
     No. Whether or not they win this suit has no bearing on whether the suits against them have any merit. It is two completely separate legal questions. That’s why your statement “if they win, then I’m assuming that all those individual cases would not have won” is wrong. They might win and still have been negligent; it just means it never even gets to that stage. 
    Okay, let’s say MGM wins, judge rules they are not liable for terrorist acts.
    Why would that defense not hold on on the individual level? They get sued 1000 times, why would it make a difference then? Why would they still not claim they are not responsible for terrorists acts and why would the same law not still apply? That’s what I don’t understand.

    I'm not sure I can explain it any more clearly. You're right that if MGM wins this suit then, as you say, "the defense wins on the individual level", but that's not the same as what you said when you said "the individual cases would not have won". Perhaps you didn't mean that the way it sounds, but saying "the individual cases would not have won" suggests that individually they didn't have merit and so they wouldn't have won, but that's not the decision being made.

    Giving it one more try - if MGM wins the legal strategy they are trying right now, it means that they can't be held legally responsible for these actions "just because", so to speak; they can't be sued for them, just because. That doesn't mean that they weren't actually negligent, it just means they can't be found legally negligent. 

    Alternately, if MGM loses/is told they can't even attempt this legal strategy, then individual suits against them can proceed and someone, judge or jury, can look at evidence to determine if they actually were negligent. 

    I favour the second option. We have no idea if they were negligent. Certainly, they might not have been; maybe there's nothing more than could have been done, but maybe they were negligent. In either case, it's good to look at the evidence instead of summarily dismissing it. 
    That wasn't how I read it. I more took it to mean that if MGM won their suit then the individual cases would not win simply by virtue of the fact that the cases wouldn't even go ahead in the first place. And as cincy said, if it was found to be a terrorist act, then negligence couldn't be found under the law.
    ..... That said... I am not sure where I stand re whether or not it was terrorism. I believe that motive is everything when it comes to whether or not something is a terrorist act, and I don't recall ever seeing that they determined what the motive was. Did they?? So far, law enforcement seems to believe it was NOT an act of terrorism.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,209
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    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. 
    That’s not how I understood it to be.
    i understood it’s a suit that will show they are not liable in the event of a terrorist act, and therefore no lawsuits can be filed against them.
    Its not like they file this suit and no one sued, they still have to prove a case and win, that’s why I don’t get the uproar. And if they win, then I’m assuming all those individual cases would not have won, right? And if they lose, that just opens the door. So what’s the difference?
    You're both basically saying the same thing in different ways, haha, and you're both right. I definitely do not take this move to be some kind of admission of negligence btw.
    No, we’re not. 
    Seems that way. The suit is indeed about them arguing that the terrorism law shields them from the lawsuits against them. That is what mace is saying too from what I can tell - the lawsuit is meant to show that they are not liable because of that law and therefore no lawsuits can be filed against them. :confused:
    That part is the same, yes. The part that isn’t is the assumption that if MGM wins it means that the other suits did not have merit.  It doesn’t, because it doesn’t address that issue at all. 
    Wait...if they are found to be protected by the terrorism law ... doesn’t that mean that the other lawsuits have no merit because the company cannot be negligent when it comes to terrorist acts?
    That’s their argument, and that’s what the law is supposed to protect against. However, in my opinion they are misusing it. The law was designed to protect companies who produce innovative anti-terrorism equipment, strategies, etc from being liable if their product didn’t work perfectly. MGM didn’t do anything innovative, they just hired a security guard, like almost every other company. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
1789101113»
Sign In or Register to comment.