Why do you say that? I simply asked why the OP was boycotting them and why they think they’re awful. I never stated my opinion about people expressing their own opinions.

And you’re basing your entire arguments on things you are literally making up. I am basing one singular point on what is reported as the lawyer’s statement above and how things played out, in response to your fabricated claim (with regard to what Cinemark wanted). At least I am basing my arguments on actual…

“I would boycott any entity who uses vast resources to bully entities with almost nothing.”

“Do you have a cite for the fact that, merely by filing suit, they were agreeing to pay Cinemark’s attorney’s fees?”

So they’re awful and you were boycotting them because they run a successful business? Do you boycott all successful businesses because you think they are awful for being successful?

What? You are not making any sense.

No, we’re not quibbling about semantics. You claimed that they announced they were suing the victims (or their families). The article you link to does not constitute an announcement on Cinemark’s part that they were suing the victims (or their families).

“the lack of moral compass that allowed them to announce they were suing the innocent victims who got hurt in their business, appalls me.”

Ignorance allows people to fill in the gaps to their liking so they can feel smug (and brag online) about doing things like boycotting a business for defending themselves in a frivolous, meritless lawsuit.

Why were you boycotting them? Why do you think they’re awful?

“They might not have been liable but asking the victims to pay for the legal fees seems like poor taste.”

“just the idea of what they did left me feeling ill.”

“They tried to, and succeeded in, getting the shooting victims to drop their meritless lawsuit against them.”

Why should hospitals absorb the cost? You do realize that providing medical attention to people who are injured or who fall ill (or who otherwise need medical care) is how they generate income to pay their staff ad all of their bills, correct? So they should just operate for free? Why?

“Pffft. Oh, poor CEO of Cinemark. At $900,000 salary, he’s the real victim here. Owns a business but doesn’t think his fortunes should ever be used to mitigate damages to families, people whose hard-earned dollars actually went towards his fame and fortune.”

“I don’t know if Cinemark offered any mitigating payment for the people who had families murdered inside their establishment but if not maybe they should think about some lessons on basic morals.”

“I answered the apologize question already (See above)”

“I think I answered your second question already - suing the 4 victims for 700,000 USD. Right?”

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

.