Planned Parenthood Sued Over Colorado Clinic Shooting

[still_one]

"The suit claims Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs should have implemented safeguards that would have prevented a gunman from going on a shooting rampage."

"DENVER (Reuters) - The widow of a man fatally shot at a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Colorado and a woman wounded in the same 2015 attack are suing the facility over lax security, court records showed on Monday.

The suit claims that given the “long history of violence” at U.S. abortion clinics, Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs should have implemented safeguards that would have prevented a gunman from going on a shooting rampage that left three people dead and nine wounded on Nov. 27 last year."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/planned-parenthood-shooting_us_57441206e4b045cc9a71d5d0

[AllyCat]

1. Guns are everywhere. Should I sue the movie theater for not preventing a rampage?

The farmer's market? The park with my family? Go after the deadly weapons manufacturers, not the people who were attacked. How about schools? They have along history of violence too.

But it will all end if (heaven-forbid) Prez tRump gets his way of banning "gun-free zones".

Any chance this is an anti-abortion plant to get PP once and for all?

[still_one]

4. I suspect it isn't an anti-abortion plant, since it is the widow of one of the victims, but I sure

think her lawsuit is misdirected at the wrong party

[jmg257]

5. They've tried..."Cinemark theater chain not liable in 2012 Colorado movie massacre"

"The owners of a Colorado movie theater where a gunman killed 12 people during the screening of a Batman film in 2012 are not liable for the mass shooting, a jury ruled on Thursday, in the first civil lawsuit stemming from the incident.
...
Owners and managers of the theater could never have foreseen, nor safeguarded against, such a seemingly random but meticulously planned and violent attack, Cinemark's lawyers had said in closing arguments on Wednesday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-colorado-shooting-lawsuit-idUSKCN0YA06P



Planned Parenthood did have safeguards - they are weapons free facilities, except for their own security (if they had any).

[Jackie Wilson Said]

2. In a backdoor kind of way this could result in public facilities being more anti gun, which is good

[jmg257]

10. How so? I mean how/what would the jusitification be for more anti-gun facilities

because of this lawsuit against PP (which is weapons-free&quot ?

[Jackie Wilson Said]

11. Negligence, if any, on the part of PP is based on

they were aware gun nuts exist, gun nuts have guns, and many gun nuts are against Planned Parenthood and therefore PP should have done far more to prevent said gun nut from shooting their clients.

It will be worded differently, of course, but this will be the basis of the claim of negligence.

The real blame here is of course the nut who shot up the place and the NRA and women hating anti abortion bigots, but that is not what the suit will be about.

If successful, an argument can be made why guns should not be allowed near human beings regardless of the business or location.


If you can get to the point where no business or service can exist while people have guns....it is a stretch but there is something here.

[jmg257]

12. Basically you have the negligence claim right...they want 'good guys with a gun', and posters...

"Failing to employ and have present at the time of the shootings at the PPH
CLINIC properly trained armed security guards, both outside the PPH
CLINIC and within, in order to protect all invitees once they entered the
premises, against the type of violent activity that PPH and PPH Colorado
have been the target of for decades;”

PPH and PPH of Colorado, as set forth above, were keenly aware of the history
of violence against them and those who frequent their clinics, and chose not to provide adequate
security for Plaintiffs and their family, although they had the means and obligation to do so.
They knew or should have known that it was likely that a violent attack of some sort would occur
at the PPH CLINIC.

PPH and PPH of Colorado provided little or no security at the PPH CLINIC, such
as an armed guard and perimeter fencing, as they do in other clinics. It provided no signs,
posters, verbal or any other type of warning describing the risk of physical harm, injury or death
associated with entering PPH properties."


Along with various other security methods, of course.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

14. The suit calls for an armed guard as an example but that is standard for this kind

of deal.

Ultimately, between this case and potentially others, a case can be made why a business or service cant exist in the same place guns do.

If the only way to protect is with a gun, I can see a case being made for no guns.

I sure hope so...

Fucking Scalia and that horrible Heller decision.

[riversedge]

3. umm. wonder if PP could sue the blow hards in the GOP for inciting violence at these clinics.!!

[fizzgig]

6. how about they sue the shooter?

[COLGATE4]

7. He sounds like he's totally uncollectible.

[fizzgig]

13. collectable or not, the responsibility lies on him

[spanone]

8. jeebus

[DVRacer]

9. I expect to see more lawsuits like these

As a business that posts no concealed carry you can be held liable for patrons security if you make them disarm before entering. I have heard chatter amongst my NRA friends that they will push this narrative. One judge and jury and then a few appeals later it could become the standard. You ask carriers to disarm then you might end up responsible for their safety.

Now I think it's absurd but I have thought many a thing absurd that is now the way it is.

[Kang Colby]

15. They should be sued.

If you operate a "gun free zone" then you have a moral and civil obligation to ensure the gun free zone is adequately protected.

How many mass shooters have been stopped by signs stating that the facility is a GFZ? None.

Gun free zones are misleading to the public if there aren't security measures to ensure that the facility remains free of unauthorized guns.