snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Non-UL Chat > Police Blotter

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 27 October 2017, 06:44 AM
Graham2001's Avatar
Graham2001 Graham2001 is offline
 
Join Date: 21 January 2006
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 747
Default

It is exactly the same after every event of this kind. The people who do this basically do not believe the people they insult are real, you can see the same phenomenon with the earlier Sandy Hook 'Truthers', here are a couple of good podcast episodes on the earlier event.

League of Nerds, Episode 89: Sandy Hook was not a Hoax
https://theleagueofnerds.co.uk/2015/...as-not-a-hoax/

League of Nerds, Episode 145: Sandy Hook Hoax Response
https://theleagueofnerds.co.uk/2016/...hoax-response/

It's best to listen to both episodes as then what happens in the second episode where the responses from Truthers are discussed makes more sense.
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 17 July 2018, 05:26 PM
Psihala's Avatar
Psihala Psihala is offline
 
Join Date: 28 February 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 8,018
Default MGM sues Las Vegas shooting victims and survivors, claiming no liability

MGM Resorts International is suing more than 1,000 victims and other survivors of last year's mass shooting in Las Vegas, claiming it has no liability for the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/las-veg...-no-liability/
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 17 July 2018, 06:51 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is online now
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,661
Default

I can't imagine that that's going to work out well for them.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 17 July 2018, 06:54 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,906
Default

I can certainly see MGM believing they have no legal responsibility, but the method of establishing that by suing the victims seems odd.
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 17 July 2018, 07:02 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,162
Default

This came up in a different context recently, and I had never heard of it at the time, but I can see how the legal process works. It allows the potential defendant in a bunch of separate lawsuits to establish their non-liability and not have to deal with it piece-meal, and also not have a sort of cloud of uncertainty over them.

On the other hand, it's a pretty bold move from a public image stance, suing a bunch of victims just to prove that they can't sue you. Hardball tactics with tragedy victims.
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 17 July 2018, 07:21 PM
WildaBeast's Avatar
WildaBeast WildaBeast is offline
 
Join Date: 18 July 2002
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 15,595
Default

I just want to say that I was relieved when I clicked this thread to see that it was just an old thread that got bumped. When I saw the topic on the main forum page my first thought was that there was another shooting.
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 17 July 2018, 07:56 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,162
Default

Me too. Same thought.
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 17 July 2018, 09:28 PM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 14,194
Default

Yeah, I had to read the headlines on the stories about this two or three times before I believed they said what I thought they said.

Of course, they aren't actually trying to get money from anyone. They're trying to get the lawsuits moved to federal court. Per an NBC news story:

Quote:
...the Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies, or Safety Act, protects corporations in the event of mass attacks committed on U.S. soil, provided services certified by the Department of Homeland Security were deployed....because MGM had hired Contemporary Services Corporation, a security vendor for the concert whose services had been certified by the Department of Homeland Security, it claims it followed the requirements of the Safety Act.
But, if you want a candidate for "Worst PR Move By a Corporation" award, I can't think of much that can compete with this.
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 17 July 2018, 09:36 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,108
Default

As a side not, it is not the Safety Act, it is the Satfet Act.

As far as the PR issue goes, is loss of PR more severe that the potential costs the lawsuits for 2,400 victims and/or the judgments thereof?
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 17 July 2018, 10:12 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,162
Default

I'm guessing it's supposed to be SAFE-T Act.

And I'm sure the PR calculation included the fact that they would take a PR hit every time a new suit was filed, or anything happened in those suits that was newsworthy.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Congresswoman Critical of Gamergate Says She Was Targeted by Active Shooter Hoax omegazord Soapbox Derby 0 02 February 2016 04:01 PM
Active Shooter Reported At Planned Parenthood In Colorado Springs Tootsie Plunkette Police Blotter 165 23 December 2015 08:37 PM
My workload situation Magdalene SLC 6 26 January 2015 10:47 PM
Maryland Mall Shooter Also Had Explosives, Police Say snopes Police Blotter 0 26 January 2014 05:37 PM
Dry lips lead to sticky situation snopes Crash and Burn 4 02 July 2013 03:16 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.