... This seems utterly stupid. DHS "certifies" that Acme Rent-a-Cop is qualified to be Acme Anti-Terrorism Security, and then no matter what other negligence takes place, they're shielded from...
a 2002 federal law that grants liability protection to any company that uses anti-terrorism technology
...
MGM asserts that the security company hired for the festival, Contemporary Services, was protected from liability as it was certified by the Department of Homeland Security.
This seems utterly stupid. DHS "certifies" that Acme Rent-a-Cop is qualified to be Acme Anti-Terrorism Security, and then no matter what other negligence takes place, they're shielded from liability?
I don't think we have enough evidence to say whether there was negligence on MGM's part or not. Establishing that would the point of the lawsuits that have been filed or threatened to be filed....
I don't think we have enough evidence to say whether there was negligence on MGM's part or not. Establishing that would the point of the lawsuits that have been filed or threatened to be filed.
MGM's motion is for declaratory judgement - they're asking for a ruling that all the lawsuits that have been filed against them, and any that might be filed in the future, should be quashed. The law referenced in the article and my comment above apparently shields them from liability, even if MGM and/or the security company were in fact negligent.
Yeah, while this lawsuit is some terrible PR, I haven't learned of any negligence that would make the hotel liable for a guest coming in and shooting a bunch of people. Did they fail to do...
Yeah, while this lawsuit is some terrible PR, I haven't learned of any negligence that would make the hotel liable for a guest coming in and shooting a bunch of people. Did they fail to do something that was reasonable?
I probably stand near you on this but what comes to mind for me was the shooter apparently bringing in gun after gun after gun through the lobby to his room. That said, guns are legal down there...
I probably stand near you on this but what comes to mind for me was the shooter apparently bringing in gun after gun after gun through the lobby to his room.
That said, guns are legal down there and this is Las Vegas we're talking about.
I could be wrong but I definitely remember reading that paddock had exhibited some odd behaviors. At the very least they're attempting to crush any lawsuits that might come down the line
I could be wrong but I definitely remember reading that paddock had exhibited some odd behaviors. At the very least they're attempting to crush any lawsuits that might come down the line
Based on these paragraphs in the article: ... it looks like the victims of the shooting are saying that MGM failed to prevent the shooter from shooting at them from its own premises. MGM, as the...
Based on these paragraphs in the article:
Lawsuits filed by victims last November claimed that Paddock, who had VIP "exclusive access" within the hotel, was able to stockpile weapons via a private elevator.
Those suits also claimed weak video monitoring and a "do not disturb" sign prevented staffers from checking the room and preventing the shooter from opening fire.
... it looks like the victims of the shooting are saying that MGM failed to prevent the shooter from shooting at them from its own premises. MGM, as the owners of the resort where the shooter was staying, should have noticed him transporting an arsenal into his room, and should have taken some action to prevent him shooting people from a room in their hotel.
I don't know if this is the case in your country, but in mine, many corporations are employee-owned. This does not prevent them from sometimes acting against the public interest.
I don't know if this is the case in your country, but in mine, many corporations are employee-owned. This does not prevent them from sometimes acting against the public interest.
The country is France and it's called actionnariat salarié. I don't know much about it to be honest. I know that it's also pretty commonplace in Germany.
The country is France and it's called actionnariat salarié. I don't know much about it to be honest. I know that it's also pretty commonplace in Germany.
Wow, a 181-page legal complaint. I stopped reading after I saw the first 11 pages are the names of the "Defendants". Edit: I decided to skim through. The first 11 pages are just a list of the...
Wow, a 181-page legal complaint. I stopped reading after I saw the first 11 pages are the names of the "Defendants".
Edit: I decided to skim through. The first 11 pages are just a list of the defendants' names. In the following 170-some-odd-pages are the individual allegations against each defendant.
I just can't see how they can even be allowed to do it. There are so many things about the Las Vegas shooting that are fucky, and odd, but this takes the cake
I just can't see how they can even be allowed to do it. There are so many things about the Las Vegas shooting that are fucky, and odd, but this takes the cake
It sucks that our mentality in the US is to sue everybody for everything. Even if its our own fault we think we can at least make a few bucks out of a bad situation. I'm not saying MGM isnt a dick...
It sucks that our mentality in the US is to sue everybody for everything. Even if its our own fault we think we can at least make a few bucks out of a bad situation. I'm not saying MGM isnt a dick or the victims are dicks, its just a sad state when our first defense is to always lawyer up.
I honestly don't see how a company is liable for a mass shooting that occurred on its territory. It just isn't something you can prevent with any kind of reliability.
I honestly don't see how a company is liable for a mass shooting that occurred on its territory. It just isn't something you can prevent with any kind of reliability.
...
This seems utterly stupid. DHS "certifies" that Acme Rent-a-Cop is qualified to be Acme Anti-Terrorism Security, and then no matter what other negligence takes place, they're shielded from liability?
It seems like yet another way that a corporate enterprise can avoid culpability for a crime that led to the death of over 50 people
Don't you know? Corporations never do anything wrong
Oh right, of course! How could I forget
I'm a bit out of the loop on this, how exactly were they responsible for the events that transpired? What are they liable for?
I don't think we have enough evidence to say whether there was negligence on MGM's part or not. Establishing that would the point of the lawsuits that have been filed or threatened to be filed.
MGM's motion is for declaratory judgement - they're asking for a ruling that all the lawsuits that have been filed against them, and any that might be filed in the future, should be quashed. The law referenced in the article and my comment above apparently shields them from liability, even if MGM and/or the security company were in fact negligent.
Yeah, while this lawsuit is some terrible PR, I haven't learned of any negligence that would make the hotel liable for a guest coming in and shooting a bunch of people. Did they fail to do something that was reasonable?
I probably stand near you on this but what comes to mind for me was the shooter apparently bringing in gun after gun after gun through the lobby to his room.
That said, guns are legal down there and this is Las Vegas we're talking about.
Stupid all around.
I could be wrong but I definitely remember reading that paddock had exhibited some odd behaviors. At the very least they're attempting to crush any lawsuits that might come down the line
Based on these paragraphs in the article:
... it looks like the victims of the shooting are saying that MGM failed to prevent the shooter from shooting at them from its own premises. MGM, as the owners of the resort where the shooter was staying, should have noticed him transporting an arsenal into his room, and should have taken some action to prevent him shooting people from a room in their hotel.
This is some of the worst of what capitalist democracy allows.
How is this related to the private ownership of the means of production?
Corporations are a capitalistic construct.
I don't know if this is the case in your country, but in mine, many corporations are employee-owned. This does not prevent them from sometimes acting against the public interest.
The country is France and it's called actionnariat salarié. I don't know much about it to be honest. I know that it's also pretty commonplace in Germany.
Wow, a 181-page legal complaint. I stopped reading after I saw the first 11 pages are the names of the "Defendants".
Edit: I decided to skim through. The first 11 pages are just a list of the defendants' names. In the following 170-some-odd-pages are the individual allegations against each defendant.
Like what? Standing in the way of a bullet?
According to the suits, they have either filed or threatened to file complaints against MGM Resorts and its affiliates.
It's insane
Absolutely ridiculous. This is why we need new blood in the political system.
I just can't see how they can even be allowed to do it. There are so many things about the Las Vegas shooting that are fucky, and odd, but this takes the cake
It sucks that our mentality in the US is to sue everybody for everything. Even if its our own fault we think we can at least make a few bucks out of a bad situation. I'm not saying MGM isnt a dick or the victims are dicks, its just a sad state when our first defense is to always lawyer up.
I honestly don't see how a company is liable for a mass shooting that occurred on its territory. It just isn't something you can prevent with any kind of reliability.