“There is no point in getting your picture taken if it doesn’t move somebody.” Her eyes widen. “Right?”

You don't, I was making fun of the idea of your boycott.

The plaintiffs (who lost) would not have won on appeal. They would, however, be liable for the attorney’s fees spent by Cinemark for the trial and for the appeal. So the plaintiffs already owe Cinemark $700k for the trial, and would owe more when they lost the appeal.

What do you mean by ‘bilk’ the families of the victims? What exactly did they (Cinemark) do that left you unsettled? I’m honestly asking, because I’m not quite following you.

I’ve read your comment several times and I have no idea what you are trying to say. How are you in particular going to cause fallout for Cinemark? And why do they need to apologize? What?

“Trying to recoup exorbitant expenses having to defend themselves against frivolous lawsuits” is not “try[ing] to bilk money from the families of shooting victims.” This was ultimately a tactic Cinemark was using to pressure the litigants to agree not to appeal the ruling. Even getting here was very costly for them,…

Why are you boycotting them? They weren’t trying to ‘bilk money out of shooting victims’. They tried to, and succeeded in, getting the shooting victims to drop their meritless lawsuit against them.

Right, the families should never have sued them in the first place but they did “because they could” even though they never had a snowball’s chance of winning.

Nope, corporation decides millions in bad publicity is better than years of appeals racking up additional millions in legal fees.

How would this have been a case of Cinemark “bilking” the plaintiffs? What does Cinemark need to apologize for?

you guys need to apologize somehow to avoid fallout.

Whose hailing this as a triumph? By Colorado law Cinemark had the right to recoup costs in a litigation case that the plantiffs lost. They didn’t want to keep having to pay for appeals and agreed to not pursue the claim if the plaintiffs agreed to no further appeals. Oh as for ‘next time we might not be so generous so…

Cinematic was always going to do this. They never wanted to make the plaintiffs pay, just wanted to make them stop suing on something that was never going to win and waste more of the company’s money.

Thank you. I am so sick of everyone parading her around like some fucking hero to the cause. She’s a criminal and a traitor and now she gets a free procedure that so many law-abiding trans individuals cannot afford. The only good thing about this news is that maybe we can finally stop hearing from her now.

I don’t think it’s a ruse (insert Archer refference here) so much as grasping at straws to justify actions that are indefensible.

There is already a standard set for civilian prisons:

Yes, that is in fact how it works. Prisoners don’t have the right to assembly, the right to bear arms, the right vote, etc...the Supreme Court has ruled that those rights are suspended due to the actions of the individual.

What’s to stop the next NCO who wants surgery from committing a crime, being sent to prison and demanding the same treatment? The current statute that maintains prisoners transition at the moment of their conviction is an adequate compromise that doesn’t incentivize criminal behavior.

I’m not opposed to the VA paying for the surgery for vets or even active service members. I’m opposed to paying for it for a criminal who didn’t even start her transition until after her conviction.

So who foots the bill on the surgery? Is that something insurance would cover? Do you still fall under military health insurance while in jail?