<p>
</p>
<p>Well, it has been done…and the perp walked.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While the local law enforcement may not treat this as an arrestable offense, the retired cop’s bringing in a gun is a violation of the CCW law terms as linked to in post #101. </p>
<p>Even with retired cops, their CCW firearm carrying rights does not supersede government agencies’ or private property/business owners’ rights to set rules barring bringing firearms on their premises. In fact, the linked law clearly states such rights trump those of the CCW firearm permit holders…and applies to retired cops. </p>
<p>It is likely to be used by the prosecutor as a sign the retired cop felt he was entitled to disregard rules as was shown by his bringing his gun to the theater and thus, initiated one of the factors leading up to this tragedy. </p>
<p>It may also be possible the theater, if they so choose, may have legal grounds to launch a civil suit against him for violating that rule/property rights and consequently causing a violent incident which placed their employees and patrons in harm’s way and caused some business losses.</p>
<p>*It is likely to be used by the prosecutor as a sign the retired cop felt he was entitled to disregard rules as was shown by his bringing his gun to the theater and thus, initiated one of the factors leading up to this tragedy.
*</p>
<p>Interesting. </p>
<p>*
It may also be possible the theater, if they so choose, may have legal grounds to launch a civil suit against him for violating that rule/property rights and consequently causing a violent incident which placed their employees and patrons in harm’s way and caused some business losses.*</p>
<p>I don’t know if theater would bother. However, maybe if the widow decides to sue the theater since it happened on their property, then maybe the theater would sue the cop.</p>
<p>This may be just silly thinking, but I do wonder what the shooter has been thinking these last few days. Regret? Blame? </p>
<p>I feel so badly for both wives. Both are victims. Both are probably reliving that day in their minds, over and over again, beating themselves up thinking that they should have done something to prevent this.</p>
<p>Now that I write this, it’s got me thinking. WHAT was the shooter’s wife doing during all of this? If my H had been nagging someone about their texting, I would have told him to knock it off…and maybe I would have moved to force H to move. Certainly, once the other person had voiced that he was texting his child’s babysitter, I would have really told H to knock it off! At a minimum, if my H had left the theater to complain, I would have moved our seats right then! What the heck was she doing during all of this? If she was doing nothing, that suggests (to me) that she has long-learned that her words wouldn’t be heard or respected by her H…or maybe she’s learned that if she does speak up, then her H’s anger is turned towards her.</p>
<p>I was thinking about the legal issues in what seems to be a claim of self-defense under the FL statute I quoted. My relatively uninformed guess is that “unlawful activity” doesn’t include violating a private property rule for business customers. That said, it would be unlawful activity if he were trespassing but he was an “invitee” so the question would be whether his violating a rule for invitees is “unlawful activity”. Maybe, but I doubt it. That’s a hard line to draw: what if the rule is you can’t let kids walk around on their own? Both rules are about preventing harm and damage and thus liability so I have trouble understanding why they would be “unlawful”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Could one legally argue that by virtue of having a no weapons sign clearly posted, the theater clearly communicated that bringing a weapon to the premises immediately renders the “invitee” status null and void?</p>
<p>If the theater was seriously worried about guns in its theater it would have check points at its entrances with scanning devices and trained personnel doing physical inspections…just like at places like a courthouse. The posted signs really mean little and provide little protection for patrons. Not going to happen extra security…too costly for theaters and patrons would complain about privacy intrusion and not patronage the theaters with extra security.</p>
<p>If the theater has signs posted “no guns” and theater personnel spot someone with a gun, they can call police. I doubt aisle host is going to want to tell someone he sees with a gun to leave…call local police.</p>
<p>Places like Disney World and Tampa’s Busch Garden have no weapons on premises policy, but they at least inspect your purse and bags at entrances.</p>
<p>I am not sure I’d consider someone who purchases a ticket to enter a theater an “invitee”. They are a “patron”. I went to the theater’s website to see if they have a posted policy about their expected code of conduct (for eg, I looked at the back on an AMC ticket I had and it states “Violation of the Code of Conduct will result in revocation of license and removal from property without a refund”) and I noticed that 3 the 4 films they are currently showing are:" Nut Job", “Nut Job 3D” and “Devil’s Due”. Sadly ironic.</p>
<p>The website does have a description of their “zero tolerance” policy, which includes: “Use of cellphone (including talking and/or texting) or other electronic devices while inside the auditorium is strictly prohibited” as their very first item. The “no possession of weapons of any kind is permitted on the property” is the 8th one down. Also included are comments about excessive or loud talking, use of profanity, disruptive behaviors, etc, so in this regard the 2 gentlemen were both in the wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Cobb</a> Theatres / Grove 16 & CineBistro / Wesley Chapel FL / 33544](<a href=“http://www.cobbtheatres.com/grove16.aspx]Cobb”>http://www.cobbtheatres.com/grove16.aspx)</p>
<p>When the man left his seat did he actually go and complain? He could have done many things including go to his vehicle to get his weapon or go to the men’s room to load his weapon/take the safety off and put it in his pocket. Who walks around with a loaded gun loosely in their pocket with the safety off?</p>
<p>All would point to deliberate thoughts to use his weapon prior to discharging it.</p>
<p>I wonder if their are cameras in or near the parking lot or lobby.</p>
<p>That’s the thing. There are MANY things this guy could have done short of pulling out his gun and aiming it at a young couple in his anger. To me that is the factor that distinguishes many of these senseless shootings–the trigger-happy response to situations that might easily be resolved with a far less extreme reaction.</p>
<p>“Invitee” is a legal term. There are standards of care due to specific types of people. So you don’t owe much care to a trespasser, but see ultra-hazardous activities and attractive nuisance cases for the limits. You owe more care to a “licensee”. So let’s say you have a factory. It’s generally closed to the public but you have a tour group in. You owe those people a higher degree of care in regards to liability for what happens to them. An “invitee” is a member of the public “invited” on to the property, like when you have a movie theater. You owe an even higher standard of care because you are actively encouraging people to come on to your property.</p>
<p>And yes, the victim’s family has a reasonable lawsuit against the theater chain. A sign doesn’t cut it as care but really important is that the shooter appears to have spoken to a manager but the conversation was not, in the words of the article I read, completed. That would show potential existed to defuse a situation, which is the kind of care an invitee should expect from the owner of the property.</p>
<p>Another thing that bothers me…</p>
<p>A cop KNOWS that bullets often go thru people and then hit someone else…or they ricochet and hit someone else. For that reason, they avoid ever shooting when there are others around. This guy didn’t care that there were other people that could easily have also been hit by this lone bullet.</p>
<p>Does that sign apply to off-duty cops? I doubt it. There was an off-duty cop a few feet away. They’re supposed to carry their guns with them at all times. (not sure about on planes, though)</p>
<p>A close friend of mine is a cop and he says that he’s considered “on duty” 24/7…which is why he always carries a concealed, loaded, ready-to-use, semi-automatic with a full magazine.</p>
<p>good point mom2–post 191—the bullet could have hit his own wife among others.</p>
<p>and sadly ironic how seriously the shooter took the “no texting” rule, while ignoring the “no weapons” rule.</p>
<p>There are law suits pending against the Aurora Colorado theater. The plaintiffs (invitees) in these cases have to prove that what happened was foreseeable.</p>
<p>The Wesley Chapel theater is a pretty big operation with 16 theaters and it looks like a restaurant with booze. The theater operators are idiots if they don’t have hired uniformed police on the premises all open hours for safety of patrons. When Reeves when to front office with complaint, the theater management should have sent a uniformed security cop down to assist.</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“CinéBistro”>CinéBistro | CinéBistro at Grove 16]Cin</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you’re referring to the federal law, it’s not that black and white. They can carry but they’re not mandated in any way. My ex-husband was a cop and he never carried after he retired. It’s Florida law, not the federal law, that dictates whether the posting of a sign matters or not. I don’t believe the sign means anything under Florida law, if the person has a permit for a concealed weapon. The statute lists the places where a person with such a license cannot carry and there is no mention of private businesses.</p>
<p>So did he go and complain?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are probably right, but this really bugs me. The theater did not ask the guy to pull his gun out and shoot the victim. The retired cop didn’t work for the theater. The Theater had a sign telling the cop not to bring his gun into the theater but the cop disregarded it anyway. The theater should have no liability whatsoever. Simply because the theater has money or insurance does not mean it should be liable for death caused by someone it would not have wanted in its theater if it knew what a creep he was.</p>
<p>I agree, razorsharp. The idea that you can be liable for pretty much anything that happens on your premises, including things that no reasonable person could have foreseen, is silly to me.</p>
<p>The theater has a ‘zero tolerance’ policy for texting and a bunch of other things. Reeves reported the texting to management like theater asks guests to do, and went back to his seat and a scuffle started up with Chad getting shot. Reeves reported to theater management…what’d management do after that?</p>