MGM Resorts International Sues LV Shooting Victims.

a reply to: Atsbhct

Well they gotta protect them benjamins...

I do love how they hunted for a sympathetic judge first. Goes to show how the system really works.

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
As much as I feel for the victims and their families. But unless MGM was found negligent in their efforts that day they should not be responsible.

I would say letting that guy use the service elevators to take over 50 guns to his room was pretty damm negligent

Does the hotel have a legal right to search someone's luggage?
I have been to a lot of hotels and have never been searched or been thru a metal detector.

no. But they have a right to ask why are you taking so many bags to your room and why do you need the service elevator..

I would maybe side with MGM if they had not let him use the service elevator..

a reply to: notsure1

Medical supplies that need to be in a climate controlled environment and not a car trunk in vegas.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: notsure1

Medical supplies that need to be in a climate controlled environment and not a car trunk in vegas.

Medical supplies for every guest in the hotel?

a reply to: notsure1

Sales rep?

Chocolate samples?

Brochures that need to be assembled for a conference?

How hard is it to come up with a bullshot excuse?

a reply to: Bluntone22

The window breaking sans alarm is what gets me.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: notsure1

Sales rep?

Chocolate samples?

Brochures that need to be assembled for a conference?

How hard is it to come up with a bullshot excuse?

And how hard is it to say no you cant use the service elevators?

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: notsure1

Sales rep?

Chocolate samples?

Brochures that need to be assembled for a conference?

How hard is it to come up with a bullshot excuse?

And how hard is it to say no you cant use the service elevators?

He would just use the regular elevators in the lobby.
Same result.


I have been to a lot of conventions and conferences at hotels.
Always as a attendee not a vendor.
Using the service elevator is common practice so avoid regular hotels guests.

a reply to: Atsbhct

The Las Vegas Review Journal has a more thorough article on the topic, and it's not as "sickening" or "disgusting" or "egregious" as some who apparently have not read more than just the NY Daily News article are claiming.

The company cites a 2002 federal act that extends liability protection to any company that uses “anti-terrorism” technology or services that can “help prevent and respond to mass violence.”

In this case, the company argues, the security vendor MGM hired for Route 91, Contemporary Services Corp., was protected from liability because its services had been certified by the Department of Homeland Security for “protecting against and responding to acts of mass injury and destruction.”

The lawsuits argue that this protection also extends to MGM, since MGM hired the security company.

They do not seek money from the victims but do ask that a judge decide if the 2002 act is applicable, and if so, determine that future civil lawsuits against the company are not viable.

What they are doing is wanting a federal court to rule as to whether or not a federal law applies to the incident, and if it does, whether or not the civil suits against MGM Resorts International can be dismissed.

They are not suing for money or damages or anything else--the only reason that these people are named in the suit is because they are who initiated the suit against the company to begin with. If you want a suit dropped, you have to sue the individual(s) who sued you in the first place.

And here's the thing--unless all of you who seem to think that MGM is culpable in some way for this attack, are you suggesting that all bags be openly searched upon entry to their hotel? Should rooms be randomly and forcibly inspected as to see what's going on in there on a daily basis? Should all of their windows be bulletproof glass? Should they have metal detectors at every entrance and exit? Should they have security cameras in every room?

What, in your opinion, could they have done better? They had hotel security, but if you know anything, hotel security isn't exactly populated by a bunch of Liam Neesons, Jason Stathoms, and Donnie Yens. They had a hotel policy of no firearms, but the State of Nevada does not legally enforce no-gun policies in private businesses (but that would be a state issue, not an MGM issue, but the list of "off-limits places" includes the verbiage: "Any buildings with metal detectors or signs prohibiting firearms at each public entrance").

Look, I get the emotional outrage, and the optics of a lawsuit against victims is pretty bad, but if you actually pay attention to the "why" and the reason that the victims are listed as defendants, you can see that it's not as malicious as you may think on behalf of MGM.

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: Bluntone22

The window breaking sans alarm is what gets me.

Are you implying that every window on every floor of every hotel in the United States should be retrofitted with a very expensive alarm system installed on them, just for the one-in-one-billion chance that someone may break a few windows in an unpredictable murderous rampage?

Ridiculous. MGM isn't suing the shooting victims.

some people seem to be saying that the hotel needs to be held fully liable for damages caused by the shooter. so if we take that as legitimate, that means that the schools, which means cities and their taxes should be held fully liable for school shootings. and that places like the Pulse nightclub, malls theaters or anywhere else should be held just as liable for the injuries and deaths from shooters and other attacks on their property. and in cases where shootings and other forms of murder/terrorism in public spaces, the cities or states should be held fully liable for those deaths and injuries. after all, all those places have been equally negligent in stopping these things.


just as stated on this thread about the hotel failing to search the shooter. likewise schools, malls, nightclubs, theaters, restaurants business offices etc, have all failed to search or search well enough to keep weapons like guns out of their spaces. and this should not only apply to things like mass shootings and terrorist attacks. but for people killed in robberies and such as well. after all the places have also been equally negligent in protecting the people there, by not searching everyone who enters for weapons.

a reply to: generik

didn't something recently come out mgm/mandalay said nothing like this ever happened so they don't know how much security they need until something really happens...turned out they lied..... a few years agoa maid found a bunch of guns in a room it was very OBVIOUS that this was a planned shooting and the person was arrested the threat thwarted

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Atsbhct

Look, I get the emotional outrage, and the optics of a lawsuit against victims is pretty bad, but if you actually pay attention to the "why" and the reason that the victims are listed as defendants, you can see that it's not as malicious as you may think on behalf of MGM.

All this "outrage" and reactions of "disgusting" are a response to Fake News. You guys are supposed to be smarter than that, to "deny ignorance." I see no evidence that you are applying any critical thinking skills to these issues. You are no different than anyone else who gets their news from CNN and believes it.

originally posted by: research100
a reply to: generik

didn't something recently come out mgm/mandalay said nothing like this ever happened so they don't know how much security they need until something really happens...turned out they lied..... a few years agoa maid found a bunch of guns in a room it was very OBVIOUS that this was a planned shooting and the person was arrested the threat thwarted

i would have to assume that the guns the maid found were all out in the open to see? if not that would mean she was illegally searching through someone's belongings.


but perhaps to be safe places like hotels, malls, theaters etc. should all have to search everyone that enters for weapons? if that were the case then YES they should be held responsible, since in that case they would have failed in their duty to search everyone for weapons. but since there are no requirements to search everyone, how can they be held responsible for not searching one man? what would be their cause to search one person, but not everyone? and i could just imagine the cry of [i]"they are illegally searching everyone. my rights are being violated" if such a policy to search everyone was put into place, without a law requiring it being in place.

a reply to: schuyler

How's that? I posted links and explained why the outrage over this/these lawsuit(s) is unfounded. How can you come at me with silly ad hominems when I have completely explained myself and provided a link with better information that the OP's which lacked anything of substance?

Nice try, though, I suppose. How, in anything that I posted and said, was I displaying or embracing ignorance? If you see no evidence of critical thinking skills, then you are wearing blinders. The OP and the knee-jerk reactors are the ones lacking critical thinking...or are you trying to say that comments that amount to nothing more than 'this is outrageous and disgusting' provide greater insight on the topic?

And who the hell are "you guys?" Generalizing is another great example of critical thinking, I suppose. I guess that Boadicea wasn't thinking critically when they posted their comment, either...amirite?

But, hey--way to make your only comment in the thread completely off-topic and directed at a member instead of discussing the issue at hand. Bravo.

a reply to: Boadicea

Good post--I did one similar, and didn't see yours until I had to respond to a ridiculous post from another user.

Great minds critically-think alike

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
As much as I feel for the victims and their families. But unless MGM was found negligent in their efforts that day they should not be responsible.

Unless MGM is found negligent by a jury, they will be found not responsible. This lawsuit is just a blatent attempt at forum shopping. MGM's insurance company is trying to pick the judge and venue.

MGM should not be liable for a Terroerist attack like that. It does not matter if the terroreist is home grown or not, the guy was a loose cannon and you cannot start searching everyone's bags that comes stay in your city.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Atsbhct

Well then they should be suing the Paddock estate.

As HE was the one who pulled the trigger.

Every asset he had should be liquidated and every single penny his estate then possesses should then be distributed among his victims.