Las Vegas massacre.
Comments
-
mace1229 said:
Okay, let’s say MGM wins, judge rules they are not liable for terrorist acts.oftenreading said:
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.mace1229 said:
That’s not how I understood it to be.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.
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?
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 shelf0 -
I totally agree. Anything else is an obstruction of justice, something big rich corporations excel at.oftenreading said:mace1229 said:
Okay, let’s say MGM wins, judge rules they are not liable for terrorist acts.oftenreading said:
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.mace1229 said:
That’s not how I understood it to be.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.
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?
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.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
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?oftenreading said:
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.oftenreading said:
No, we’re not.PJ_Soul said:
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.mace1229 said:
That’s not how I understood it to be.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.
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?
hippiemom = goodness0 -
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.oftenreading said:mace1229 said:
Okay, let’s say MGM wins, judge rules they are not liable for terrorist acts.oftenreading said:
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.mace1229 said:
That’s not how I understood it to be.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.
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?
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 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 onWith all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
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.cincybearcat said:
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?oftenreading said:
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.oftenreading said:
No, we’re not.PJ_Soul said:
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.mace1229 said:
That’s not how I understood it to be.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.
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?my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
I wonder if any of these folks prayed while bullets rained down on them? And if they were killed, they either didn’t pray or pray hard enough? Or was it the wrong prayer?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; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Are you trying to mock religion or gun culture? Or both?
because it seems to me like you’re just mocking religion here and using the worst mass shooting to do so.0 -
Mocking idiotic Texas lawmakers.
0 -
pretty sure he is mocking the fact that thoughts and prayers are all that legislators seem willing to do.mace1229 said:Are you trying to mock religion or gun culture? Or both?
because it seems to me like you’re just mocking religion here and using the worst mass shooting to do so.
_____________________________________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 '140 -
The search for misery continuesBe Excellent To Each OtherParty On, Dudes!0
-
It’s not hard to find, unfortunately. Over/under on the next thoughts and prayers event?Jason P said:The search for misery continues09/15/1998 & 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; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
6 days
0 -
...which is connected to gun culture.mickeyrat said:
pretty sure he is mocking the fact that thoughts and prayers are all that legislators seem willing to do.mace1229 said:Are you trying to mock religion or gun culture? Or both?
because it seems to me like you’re just mocking religion here and using the worst mass shooting to do so.
Mock away.1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley0
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K 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