Las Vegas massacre.
Comments
-
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?oftenreading said:
I know. I don’t agree with their attempt to use this law in this way.mickeyrat said:
this lawsuit seeks to render the victims lawsuits moot. they arent seeking damages. but seeking remedy in federal court to nullify those suits.oftenreading said:
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.tempo_n_groove said: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...hippiemom = goodness0 -
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?cincybearcat said:
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?oftenreading said:
I know. I don’t agree with their attempt to use this law in this way.mickeyrat said:
this lawsuit seeks to render the victims lawsuits moot. they arent seeking damages. but seeking remedy in federal court to nullify those suits.oftenreading said:
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.tempo_n_groove said: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...
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 shelf0 -
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.brianlux said:
The nerve of those people letting themselves get shot at! I swear!tbergs said:
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.brianlux said:
The nerve of those people letting themselves get shot at! I swear!tbergs said:
It's a hopeless situation...0 -
Well said...tbergs said:
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.brianlux said:
The nerve of those people letting themselves get shot at! I swear!tbergs said:Give Peas A Chance…0 -
There are people suing the hotel that were hurt by getting trampled in the concert venue.tbergs said:
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.brianlux said:
The nerve of those people letting themselves get shot at! I swear!tbergs said:
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.0 -
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.tbergs said:
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.brianlux said:
The nerve of those people letting themselves get shot at! I swear!tbergs said:
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.tbergs said:
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.brianlux said:
The nerve of those people letting themselves get shot at! I swear!tbergs said:
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 shelf0 -
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.tempo_n_groove said:
There are people suing the hotel that were hurt by getting trampled in the concert venue.tbergs said:
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.brianlux said:
The nerve of those people letting themselves get shot at! I swear!tbergs said:
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.
I wish the legal system had some common sense to weed out anything but gross negligence.hippiemom = goodness0 -
Most of the time now a judge will hear the motion.cincybearcat said:
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.tempo_n_groove said:
There are people suing the hotel that were hurt by getting trampled in the concert venue.tbergs said:
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.brianlux said:
The nerve of those people letting themselves get shot at! I swear!tbergs said:
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.
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.0 -
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.oftenreading said:
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.tbergs said:
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.brianlux said:
The nerve of those people letting themselves get shot at! I swear!tbergs said:
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.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Well, yeah, but that doesn’t shield them from public censure for doing it.PJ_Soul said:
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.oftenreading said:
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.tbergs said:
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.brianlux said:
The nerve of those people letting themselves get shot at! I swear!tbergs said:
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 shelf0 -
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.oftenreading said:
Well, yeah, but that doesn’t shield them from public censure for doing it.PJ_Soul said:
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.oftenreading said:
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.tbergs said:
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.brianlux said:
The nerve of those people letting themselves get shot at! I swear!tbergs said:
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.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.oftenreading said:
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.tbergs said:
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.brianlux said:
The nerve of those people letting themselves get shot at! I swear!tbergs said:
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.
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.It's a hopeless situation...0 -
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.tbergs said:
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.oftenreading said:
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.tbergs said:
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.brianlux said:
The nerve of those people letting themselves get shot at! I swear!tbergs said:
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.
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.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
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.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
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.
0 -
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.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.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
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.oftenreading said:
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.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.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
Then let a judge or jury tell them they are wrong...PJ_Soul said:
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.oftenreading said:
Well, yeah, but that doesn’t shield them from public censure for doing it.PJ_Soul said:
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.oftenreading said:
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.tbergs said:
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.brianlux said:
The nerve of those people letting themselves get shot at! I swear!tbergs said:
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.
Give Peas A Chance…0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help