Okay, so unfuck MGM.
Also:
Dude… stop it. Before you even start.… STOP. IT.
17 Likes
How so? I mean, your statement is 100% speculation, but I am curious as to what that speculation is.
They don’t have cameras in the rooms. An event like this has never happened before (shooting from a hotel window into a concert), thus who is really speculating “What’s in the bags?”. If they had ANY clue at all, then wouldn’t you think the security guy who was shot would have had some sort of suspicion before hand and not have gotten shot?
The politicians who voted for the immunity law in 2002.
2 Likes
Melz, it is relevant to the discussion. Traveling with firearms in a hotel alone is not a red flag. I’ve seen people travel with them at airports and have traveled with bags of paintball gear and Pelican cases with camera equipment. So even IF there was a case or two that looked like a rifle case, it wouldn’t have been cause for alarm.
But as I said, all of the stuff was packed up in luggage and he moved it over multiple days. I don’t see how one could have seen the coming event coming.
Still, while i don’t think they should be held liable, this legal tactic to “protect” themselves from lawsuits is baffling.
7 Likes
I agree with you.
But that’s not going to stop people from trying to sue them about it and it’s unlikely those people could win a case like that. It much more likely that victims could try to force a settlement because casinos prefer to keep their data analytics a high level secret and even if they win the suit, they could still end up risking a ton of money having that data just sitting out there to the public and competitors to see. But that’s more speculation on top of what I said 
2 Likes
Reminds me of Charlie Stress’ talk about ‘slow AI = corporations’ as a… metaphor? lens? mindset? with which to examine the way AIs might behave in the future. One word: shitty.
5 Likes
I’m clearly too much of a lawyer since I look at what they’ve done and see it as a perfectly sensible and reasonable step. In context.
Rob’s summary is a little short on details such as that Mr Eglet is the attorney for a number of the victims who are already suing MGM. MGM’s move is a step to try and bring an end to that litigation and prevent further claims.
Eglet is arguing that MGM was under a duty to provide ‘adequate security’, that it was forseeable that someone might decide to do what Paddock did and MGM should have prevented it and because they didn’t, they didn’t provide ‘adequate security’ and are liable.
MGM are arguing that they hired a firm who are certified by the DHS as being able to protect against ‘acts of mass injury and destruction’, i.e. what Paddock did, and that that meets their obligation to provide ‘adequate security’.
If that is a good argument, it would mean no claims of that nature could succeed against them.
They are seeking an order that it is a good argument and to restrain any future lawsuits on that ground.
They are not suing the victims for money.
25 Likes
It’s like the NRA. The lawyer’s answer to lawyers is always going to be more lawyers. Remember, the only person who can stop a bad person with a lawyer, is a good person with a lawyer. You can have my lawyer when when you pry him from my cold dead hands. Etc. Etc.
11 Likes
OK, take this with a grain of salt, but this is what I heard…
The people who created and provisioned the event have been ruled immune to prosecution or blame, because of weird federal laws.
Survivors and families of the victims, as well as the usual assortment of freeloaders, would like some monetary compensation, and they want to take on the hotel owners in a state court, since they already got stiffed by the event organizers at the federal level.
The hotel owners, by filing suit, can force the action into federal court, where they have some slim chance of taking refuge in the same CYA laws the event organizers used to skate off. Looking solely at the economic picture, and realizing that the hotel owners can close the hotel and open under a new name quite easily, filing suit seems almost sane.
I think you are right, but I don’t think anyone rich will suffer much.
All the time! I have moved 40+ lbs of armor and blades through TSA inspection without much issue, when traveling to a competition by air.
6 Likes
This is significant and changes the complexion of the story a lot.
3 Likes
It’s still a bad look, and a terrible PR move, regardless.
8 Likes
It’s still going to cost the victims money to prudently lawyer-up enough to know what’s going on.
9 Likes
I’m not a lawyer, but the fact that MGM appears to be “shopping” for a court that would be friendly to their argument sure makes it look like they don’t have a good defense against the victims’ suit against the hotel chain.
13 Likes
It’s perfectly sensible and reasonable in a legal sense but not a larger business one. That tunnel vision is why you don’t see a lot of in-house lawyers rising to the CEO and COO level outside law firms.
From a legal point of view it makes sense for MGM to to judge shop, especially if the company understands that there’s going to be a lot of available evidence (e.g. public-area video, guest monitoring, due diligence performed on and fees paid to the security contractor) that the plaintiffs will be able to draw on to try and demonstrate negligence in providing adequate security. Having a business-friendly federal judge helps offset some risk, although it’s had terrible (and to a non-lawyer) entirely predictable blowback on the business as a whole.
9 Likes
Noted.
2 Likes
If that’s the case, it should really be a big story… I can see ways in which the event sponsors might be liable to some degree, depending on their facilities and immediate response to the attack. They also probably held some kind of insurance policy that the victims probably have a claim to… Trying to find info…
ETA: Found this oldish article about who’s potentially liable. I guess “experts agree the event coordinators are not at fault” but maybe the promoter Live Nation is for some reason… Also, I guess the hotel’s liability is a bit more complicated, based on incomplete information… supposedly, the perpetrator had a “do not disturb” sign on the door for three days before the shooting, and shot a security guard before the massacre began. Potential points of negligence for the hotel. Maybe this information is out of date…
7 Likes
What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, or you will be sued.
1 Like
Thank you.
1 Like
That badge should have this drawing https://boingboing.net/2017/07/19/kurt-vonnegut-butt.html
2 Likes
Perhaps they should find another hobby less associated with violence. People travel to model railroad conventions with models; people travel to science fiction conventions with books.
Americans are entirely too weapon-crazy.
8 Likes
