The Goat Pen

Actually, the alarm would have gone off because he had the door still propped open. With the alarm going off, either the manager or a patron could have closed the door before he got to his car, put on his gear (and mask) and got his guns. Then again, maybe not.

Metal detectors at the front door and alarms on the emergency exit would be a good deterrent. Night. About to storm here on the island and my youngest isn't a fan of storms.

If the alarm is set to sound on the door, he slightly alters his plan: he brings the guns in with him or stages them right outside the door or has an accomplice. Having two ways out cannot be considered a risk, IMO. Will we make all companies (wal-mart, for example) only have one way out of a particular area (without an alarm sounding)?

Requiring all companies to have metal detectors and people trained to man them is not feasible either, IMO.

I have an alarm on my house and I am about to add a power gate on the driveway. There are ways to get around them, but it encourages many to go elsewhere. There is always a way around but the goal is to make it more difficult, such as having to get an accomplice, which increases the chance of him getting caught ahead of time. While I don't believe in doing something just to try it, I'm also not a fan of the don't do anything because some can figure out a way around it.

I have an alarm on my house, as well. If I had 100 people in my house, I would not set it, though.

If you think the alarm would have deterred him in the slightest, you would have to try it. I, however, do not believe that it would be effective, at all. Because of that, it would not be an option that I would consider.

I also believe that there are some things that you cannot realistically expect a business to prepare for and prevent. Things so rare and without pattern or reason that measures enacted after-the-fact, to prevent reoccurrence, are wasted motion.

An example: About a year ago, two people were stabbed while in line at a local fast food joint. The stabber, in broad daylight, just flipped out and began cutting people in front of him in line. I cannot imagine a common sense measure by the restaurant to address the issue and keep it from reoccurring.

This guy was smart. He had no doubt cased the theater and made his plan. He wore a bullet proof vest, had a riot helmet, tear gas, gas mask, 3 guns, a knife, as well as groin and leg protectors. He planned for possible resistance, knew his objective and worked his plan.

When he first cases the theater, if he had seen an alarm on the door, he would have planned to bring the guns in with him on his "D-Day". At the Batman movie, with half the audience in capes and masks, he could have easily brought wapons in with him. In fact, doing so may have made his shooting spree more effective because he drew attention to himself leaving and coming back in through that exit. Had he brought his weapon in with him, there is the potential that he would have caught more people unaware.

Curious how the lawsuit names Warner Brothers for making a violent movie that that the supposed victim paid to see. And suing Dr.s who may not exist? And if you're going that far afield, how does he cull out the gun manufacturers, ammo makers, and the retailers? Afraid of a backlash from Gander Mtn. fanatics?

My guess is the lawyers see easier pickin's by not haveing the NRA on the opposing side.

This guy wasn't even injured in the shooting yet he's the first to file suit? Send in the grief counselors.

Nobody is going to win any type of lawsuit in this ordeal.

If the movie industry would just release all new flics on Netflix or OnDemand right away then people wouldn't feel the need to go the damn theatre. I think the movie industry is at fault. Sue the bastages!

Lawyers better be getting a retainer on this one. It'd be pretty risky to take this on contingency.

I was never going to mention it, because it's akin to listing one's internet height/weight/cock size, but my brother's niece by marriage was in that movie theater with her husband and he was one of the first ones shot.

http://www.wbir.com/news/article/227540 ... ng-victims

She's fine, he's mostly fine too after the surgery, but they left a few shot pellets in some muscle rather than do more damage by digging them out.

I only mention it now because I never considered the legal angle until I read the story DSL linked about some supposed victim filing suit. My brother says the couple aren't doing interviews and have no interest in litigation, and won't take calls about either (they are new to the area and don't have a listed # anyway). So seemly every ambulance chaser with the ability to file in CO has tried to contact the parents...to the point that they've disabled their land line.

Owlman wrote:Lawyers better be getting a retainer on this one. It'd be pretty risky to take this on contingency.

Heh. So from what little I know, they apparently don't think it's risky.

Slimy bastards. Anything for a buck.

First lawsuit filed. Here we go.

In other news, Rahm Emanuel heaps much praise on Chick-fil-A by declaring that "Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values"...

http://www.suntimes.com/news/13988905-4 ... views.html

Emanuel better shut his pie hole. This summer you take a chicken sandwich away from a Chicagoan and you'll get yer head blowed oft.

Yeah, this morning on WLS, the veteran reporter that covers the Mayor's office said that Rahm's comments led to a logical question:

Does the mayor wish to reject all businesses in the city except those whose management supports gay marriage?

Considering the fact that gay marriage is fairly unpopular in America, and maybe more so in a town like Chicago that has a lot of Catholics, the list of businesses that would fit the Chick-fil-a profile would be incredibly long. If His Honor wishes to run them all out of town, he will preside over a city that looks a lot like Detroit.

But this is just another example of thuggish politics, Chicago style.

[youtube]t6TF-2Up3cU[/youtube]