It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"The issue most probably facing the hospitals and patients in a situation like Aurora is what comes after 'stabilization,'" said Dr. Howard Brody, director of the Institute for the Medical Humanities at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston and a frequent critic of excessive medical costs. "Many of these people I assume will need prolonged and expensive rehabilitation after their immediate injuries are dealt with, and that seems precisely what hospitals today are less and less willing to cover out of their own funds, and no law requires that they do so, as far as I am aware," he said.
"We have individuals who will need a lifetime of care, or a lifetime of accommodation, and our job is to make sure those needs are met," said Karla Maraccini, deputy director for community partnerships in the office of Gov. John Hickenlooper.
Originally posted by Skewed
I think the theater owner should be at least partially responsible.
After all, the owner did opt to ban weapons on the premises.
The 2nd amendment gives us the right to have firearms to defend ourselves. The owner has the right to not allow weapons on his premises. Now, if the owner is going to take away his customers right to defend themselves then the theater must take the responsibility to protect the customers. Even if that means hiring a private security firm to come watch over the patrons.
Now before anyone flames me, NO, I do not think what happened was the theaters fault. But, I do think it is the theaters fault that the customers could not defend themselves.
If a customer is injured on the establishments property, lets say there was water on the floor and a customer falls and breaks a leg, the owner is responsible. No difference here.edit on 27-7-2012 by Skewed because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Skewed
reply to post by Liquesence
So are you saying the rights of a business owner outweighs the rights of the customers? The Constitution allows for us to protect ourselves, this owner took away their right and did not provide adequate security to protect them. I know it is hindsight but the owner crippled the customers ability to defend themselves.