You don’t know anything about the law, do you?

Yes, because that’s so obviously what I said. *eyeroll*

LOL, sure thing, cupcake.

That doesn’t respond to anything I said. Like at all. Yes, people given power to play cop is a serious issue; that kind of bullshit is why Trayvon Martin is dead. It also represents why the fetishizing of the gun culture is bad. Metal detectors, which someone else suggested, are a deterrent that would not increase…

Wrong. Just because I don’t meet with clients in person doesn’t mean that such measures wouldn’t eventually effect me. I’m fine with their implemented effect if it means not killing people in my space, and for whom I am responsible.

In my worldview, if I am charging you an admission price for being in my vicinity, that makes me responsible for your safety for the amount of time you in/on my premises. Especially if being in my premises means certain rights are impugned on. For example, theaters have the right to remove you if you are screwing…

I think what a lot of people are missing is the actual standard was NOT whether Cinemark was “responsible,” but a determination of liability on the basis of whether Cinemark had acted in an objectively reasonable fashion. Which is a surprisingly subjective determination.

Irrelevant. I don’t meet with clients in person and I don’t charge admission just to come into my workplace, unlike Cinemark.

How would such countermeasures lead to killing people along the way?

Same pitch as I made to the other “any money is generous.”

OK. So come into my place of business with your family. I will make sure to watch you like a hawk when you’re on a cellphone, conveniently not noticing that some dude who paid admission to be in my establishment is toting in an assault rifle. When he shoots up your family, which happened because I didn’t pay enough…

Oh yes, poor Cinemark.

Glad to see you’re so sensitive to shooting victims.

No, it isn’t. Their lowball offer was an insult, and that they weren’t found legally responsible doesn’t mean that they aren’t, ethically and morally. Businesses already have legal rights to invade our privacy. They can record us on their premises without our permission. If they suspect we have shoplifted, they can…

“I really don’t want to live in a world in which private businesses are required to maintain the degree of security that would be necessary to make an event like this impossible. It’s bad enough what we experience at airports; the idea of that being perpetrated by unaccountable private businesses is frankly…

Calling it frivolous is a serious stretch when we live in an era where multiple theaters have banned cellphones and pay security guards to roam theaters to make sure no one is illegally recording movies to pirate. In fact, what is blatantly transparent in the decision to force the plaintiffs to pay the cost is that…

You do realize that all but three of the plaintiffs were getting less than $2,000 each, right? A movie theater is not a battle zone. A reasonable expectation of safety should be had in such a place. Regardless of whether the theater was found to be at fault—and in this court of law, it wasn’t, but that’s not really…

I can’t fault that woman for holding out. Even if she was to have received $30,000, that’s it? For everything she lost?

The question of the parent’s role is a good one. Why would parents put up with letting some kids not be invited? I just don’t think it’s okay. And then in situations like yours, what starts off as a social survival of the fittest reemerges as an old, very familiar narrative of racism.

Ha. Mr. Mess is an attorney, and so I’ve managed to pick up a lot through debating particular semantics about cases as far back as his law school days.