Madden Tournament Shooting Survivor Files Lawsuit against EA and Venue

Draax said:
It seems painfully obvious that, in this case, a person with a 12 year history of mental illness shouldn’t have a gun ...
Click to expand...

Yes! We agree there. The problem is when you simply say “fewer guns” without elaborating, no one knows if you’re talking about strengthening background checks to catch things like this or calling for a ban (or any number of things in between). So thanks for clarifying. I do think that we should work on how to prevent people like him, who have a history and/or have displayed obvious signs, from having the same access to firearms that responsible and mentally healthy people have.
 
You would sue too. Why wouldnt you when the chances are extremely.good you will win lots of money
 
if he can prove EA knew about the kids psychology issues, then i think its worth the lawsuit.
im surprised ea nor the location didnt provide security measures.

otherwise, like everyone said, another sue happy incident..
 
MMitch said:
I really can't understand US logic.... Guns/weapons kill people, let's carry more guns/weapons.
This type of logic give way too much chances on weak mind to end up doing such stupid act...

Why not for once come to the conclusion that guns should be more regulated ? (Oh lord, please protect me from the flaming warriors)

Other countries have been doing fine this way... don't you think ?

(D*mn, if I hit Post reply it might be my last one lol)
Click to expand...

In Toronto it's illegal for me to open or concealed carry. That didn't stop me from witnessing a shooting... at a bar patio... at the foot my balcony, which I was sitting on. Three people were hit and there was one intended target. Both my gf and I work in food and frequently work past 2:30am.

I was on hold with 911 for 4 minutes the night of the shooting before an operator picked up. Still no suspects Months later.
 
MMitch said:
Sorry, I just don't trust most people to carry weapons and I would say that it's not because XYZ is worse by XYZ standard that it's now not a problem anymore...
Anyway, I knew what I would be facing when I posted this so I won't bother teasing you more :)

Edit: The simple fact that someone may be carrying a gun tends to help make things escalate way faster. I can't understand because I never lived with such "open mind" but again, never felt the need neither since it's safe here even is big cities.
Click to expand...

Your reasoning is backwards. With very few exceptions (such as Zimmerman) lawful concealed carriers in the USA are far more likely to walk away from a potential confrontation than the average person. The one real bit of research done in this area shows they commit violent crimes at a rate less than 1/4 that of the rest of the population. Yes, a very small percentage (less than 1% most likely) of concealed carriers think they are bad-ass vigilantes like Zimmerman, but even those people don't go looking for trouble for the most part. Almost all the rest consider carrying a firearm to be a huge responsibility and take it extremely seriously. The last thing they want to do is get into an argument, because then they might end up having to defend themselves, and since they have a firearm if they end up shooting the other person it will seriously fark up their life for a while, even if it is self defense. Since they have taken the time to learn and understand all this, they AVOID confrontations and try to leave or de-escalate.

You can claim otherwise all day long, and anecdotal evidence will always support you since there is no record of people who didn't shoot anyone, but plenty of records of people who did. But it is still the truth based on the little research available, and actual discussions with and between people who regularly carry firearms.
 
It's not like a lawsuit wasn't expected being more or less the norm nowadays. That said, got my 3d printer printing out parts 24/7 for Reason and Wits the past week.

Reason.

Because everyone listens to reason.

Wits.

I like to keep my wits about me.
 
So....is it really unreasonable to have some kind of security at a video game event?

You can look at videos LITERALLY all day long that show people freaking out and destroying things over a video game loss. You really don't think physical harm could come into play?

Do I think he should get millions of dollars? Hell no, it's not the companies fault when it comes down to it for someone going apeshit.

But shouldn't some kind of......."failsafe" (?) be put into place in an emotionally charged environment? Where people literally freak out and lose their minds? Yeah I think so.....
 
d8lock said:
EA has the money to spring for at least one armed guard. Hell, bowling alleys have a security guard. There should have been some sort of security in place, and there wasn't. If this were any of your family you'd be singing a different tune.
Click to expand...
Wow. I've never seen an armed guard at a bowling alley or park. The only armed "security" ish person I've run into is a game warden when I was out grouse hunting, and that was the ONLY other person I encountered the entire weekend. Seriously, banks around here don't have armed guards... what kind of bowling alleys do you frequent that they need armed security?! You should move asap.
 
Problem I have when people talk about more gun control is that most of those people spew false facts as if it’s true (thanks biased media agenda) and their knee jerk reaction is just ban all guns and everything will be fine.

I feel bad for the victims but the gun didn’t shoot anyone by itself, it needed an evil persons assistance with the will to harm others.
 
Hakaba said:
Problem I have when people talk about more gun control is that most of those people spew false facts as if it’s true (thanks biased media agenda) and their knee jerk reaction is just ban all guns and everything will be fine.

I feel bad for the victims but the gun didn’t shoot anyone by itself, it needed an evil persons assistance with the will to harm others.
Click to expand...

Almost anyone can get a gun though, including this guy (legally or illegally). Of course a gun is one of the ways murderers and lunatics achieve higher body counts. We at least need better screening of individuals when purchasing AR-15s and any other deadly firearms than what is currently being issued.
 
since the ori thread was locked, looks like indeed it is a mental health issue. (duckgogo Katz under News tab. Gaming/tech sites not picking up this update) Hope someone in seat of power has the same ideas as mine, as to how to make mental health as non-taboo of a medical issue, like the flu.
 
MMitch said:
I really can't understand US logic.... Guns/weapons kill people, let's carry more guns/weapons.
This type of logic give way too much chances on weak mind to end up doing such stupid act...

Why not for once come to the conclusion that guns should be more regulated ? (Oh lord, please protect me from the flaming warriors)

Other countries have been doing fine this way... don't you think ?

(D*mn, if I hit Post reply it might be my last one lol)
Click to expand...

rich other countries with guns dont have gun problems because citizens are rich ( example Switzerland)

other western countries once with guns but not anymore ( example UK, Aus, Europe) have a legacy of differing to their governments (ex monarchies) , which lets the govs get away with lots of b.s which won't fly in the US

tighter regulation in the US ? sure but no one is happy with whatever compromise is suggested. The middle ground has gone silent and powerless in the US.
 
If you as an event organizer or event space provider declare that it is "Weapon Free", I feel that you have an obligation to keep it that way. Don't know if it was the Mall, Pizza place or EA that made that "Weapon Free" declaration, but whichever one or ones did, it's on them to make and keep it safe. Obvious in this case, they failed and should be held accountable.

Not sure how long the shooting lasted. If the released video streams represent all of the shots the guy fired, there wasn't much time between first shot and the one he killed himself with. Unless the armed guard was close to the shooter, might not have had much time to realize the danger, move toward and find the shooter and take him out.
 
Well. Most little league ball parks are owned by the local park district. The local park district does not employ any armed police force it falls to local police.

Saying more guns in that situation would cause more reckless shooting is just nonsense. No proof to back this up and when you go through any conceal and carry class the last thing they want you to do is fire your weapon. You carry to protect your family and self. You're not some vigilant. Another reason the last thing you want to do is fire your weapon is because of all the legal issues you will have to go through.

There are already many laws in place that forbid felons and people with mental issues of even owning a gun. This has come up before and usually falls with lack of enforcement of those laws. There is already tons of regulations in place.

Saying we'll just outlaw guns or take guns away. How is the answer have fewer guns make any sense? How would you go about that logically with out tearing this country apart? Do you even realize how many guns are out there now both legally and illegally? It would be like trying to stop the waves reach the shore. Sure you can say you have to start somewhere, which would be the vast majority of law abiding fire arm owning citizens. You're not going to even come close to taking away guns from the "bad Guys" If someone wants a gun to commit a heinous act they will get a gun either legally or not.

Welcome to America we have guns lots of guns that are not going away anytime soon.

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

I live in the state of IL. We have plenty of gun laws. Heck at one point hand guns were illegal in Chicago yet that city had the most gun violence and murders in the US, lot of good that law did.

I also love those gun free zones or the no hand gun sticker. Do you really think that will stop a crime being committed? If anything it says rob this place, no one has guns.

Also what did Chicago Pizza do wrong?
 
There's no way the venue nor EA can be held criminally negligent. Neither party are experts at identifying potential threats of this nature. That's law enforcement's job. Perhaps they should have alerted them, but this are extreme situations.

As an event owner and operator, I'm concerned about what precedent this may set. :/
 
rgraze911 said:
There are already many laws in place that forbid felons and people with mental issues of even owning a gun. This has come up before and usually falls with lack of enforcement of those laws. There is already tons of regulations in place.
Click to expand...

So the shooter had mental illness for 12 years. He was on numerous medications and was being seen by professionals. In addition to this the police had made 26 visits because of his behaviour. Even with all this he was legally allowed to purchase a firearm in the last month or so.

Forgive me but it appears your laws and gun regulation really fucking suck based on the above. Additionally in this case fewer guns was the answer ... very clearly.
 

Im saying the laws are in place but not being enforced, the laws dont "suck". Are you telling me those laws suck?

You state clearly that fewer guns are the answer. Quite the non answer. How do you propose we arrive to fewer guns. Ok fewer guns, lets say every 5th American owns 3 guns, they now own only one gun. How does this help? I thought I addressed this issue already. Guns have been made in America since we came to these shores, they are still produced every day. Do you have any concept of how many guns are in America at this point in time?
 
This attorney office is from my home state. The guy is a class A ambulance chaser. Flaunts his union membership on his radio ads, talks about the constitution being law of the land, etc... Same guy that sued Florida for medical marijuana rights.
 
BloodyIron said:
There's no way the venue nor EA can be held criminally negligent. Neither party are experts at identifying potential threats of this nature. That's law enforcement's job. Perhaps they should have alerted them, but this are extreme situations.

As an event owner and operator, I'm concerned about what precedent this may set. :/
Click to expand...
I haven't heard of anyone arguing that EA should be held criminally negligent. Civil negligence, however, is a concern. The requirement of that is when one fails to take reasonable care in doing something to prevent a foreseeable harm. The standard doesn't require expertise, either, but rather what an average person would do under ordinary circumstances (https://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/standards-of-care-and-the-reasonable-person.html).

EA isn't completely in the clear here and hopefully you wouldn't want them to be once you think long and hard about it.
1. Did EA know that this person was a threat?
Knee jerk reaction is to go on the defensive and say that's absurd. But if there is evidence of EA learning of any past threats from this person, that's a problem that an ordinary person would have addressed.

If someone has a history of threatening you but you ignore the threats and have a party on Monday, then the person comes and hurts someone at your party, the law would consider that you did not take reasonable steps to protect the people at your home. And shouldn't that be what the law says? Or do you think people should ignore reasonable threats? If I drive my car with known faulty breaks and pick your daughter up to go to the mall with mine, and we're in an accident along the way and she's killed, do you want to be able to sue me for failing to live up to my obligation to maintain my car in working/safe conditions? Or is it simply too bad, so sad she should have known better than to get in my car?

Similarly, if EA or some other entity advertised this as a gun free zone then it certainly seems like the jury would consider two points: one, if participants can't bring their own security, the venue should provide it. two, if a zone is advertised as "gun free" it may in fact become a target for that very reason. three, should large scale events provide security for their participants, especially in Florida where there have been several recent shootings in public venues?

Those are the kinds of issues that can and should be raised in a case like this. Do you feel those are unfair concerns?
 
The Mad Atheist said:
It's common to sue everyone that might have a connection.
Click to expand...
"Common" isn't a good way to look at it because it's, in practical terms, required.

If an aggrieved party sues one party in what might otherwise be a multi-party suit, the other parties will point to the missing party and lay blame at that entity's feet.

In this case we might have EA, the mall, the store, the employees, one specific supervisor, agencies that dealt with the shooter, and the shooter himself, who bear anywhere from 0-100% monetary responsibility. The amount of liability has to be figured out in court and if one or more parties aren't even named in the suit they can't be assessed for their portion. So maybe EA is 0% liable but that's for the court to decide. If they aren't named in the suit, then a really good lawyer for the mall (for example) is going to argue that if not for EA they wouldn't have any responsibility and the court might just side with that argument and rule EA 100% everyone else 0% and the plaintiff gets nothing because EA wasn't included in the suit (and you might think that EA would automatically get loaded up with responsibility in a future court hearing naming EA, but the reverse can and does happen where EA could then successfully argue the mall was 100% responsible, the court could agree, and then everyone is now ruled to have 0% liability).
 
On negligence to provide security, is there a requirement in Jacksonville for events over a certain size to retain private security?

For the taxi incident at a previous event where "Katz became "visibly upset" and "threatening" does that mean EA is liable for Katz's behavior forever? Does one incident reported by one person require a lifetime ban from all events? What is the reasonable standard for screening competitors and spectators at an event. Will it require medical releases, mental evaluations and full background checks?

From the article:

"On Wednesday, Jacksonville fire inspectors shut down Chicago Pizza. A city code violation report says the restaurant didn't have a permit to hold the "Madden NFL 19" tournament. Also, The Florida Times-Union reported that the restaurant's last approved building layout was submitted in 2009. Fire inspectors said the layout was altered without approval to create the GLHF Game Bar, the room where the tournament took place."

If true this may place some blame with the Pizza place and possibly EA. Apparently the event was large enough to require a permit that wasn't obtained and the space did not meet fire codes - which are there for more than just fires. Room capacity, escape routes, etc. are all part of fire code.

Then the suit claims EA didn't notify law enforcement about the event. Was there a duty to report? (The permit issue mentioned above may answer this.)

Showing EA is taking this seriously and maintaining due diligence the article does state EA has cancelled all Madden events while they review safety protocols.
 
d8lock said:
EA has the money to spring for at least one armed guard. Hell, bowling alleys have a security guard. There should have been some sort of security in place, and there wasn't. If this were any of your family you'd be singing a different tune.
Click to expand...
Do you really think an armed guard would have prevented this? Think about it and try to play that situation out in your head. Two, three armed guards would likely not have prevented it either. Maybe, _maybe_ they could have taken him down before he fired all the rounds, but that's about it.

Blame the gun laws. If you have known mental health issues, you get no guns. How many times are people going to have to suffer through this shit because whackjobs are sold guns?
 
Bigbacon said:
You would sue too. Why wouldnt you when the chances are extremely.good you will win lots of money
Click to expand...

No, no I wouldn't. So your reasoning to sue is because chances are you can get a lot of money? If you rob a bank, chances are you can get a lot of money too.
 
I would just like to point out that in many cases it would be illegal for EA or the site owners to know if this person was mentally unstable, seeing a mental health professional, being interviewed by the police, or an owner of a gun, unless the person had done something to make that knowledge public. Privacy laws cover many things, and I'm doubting that EA can be held responsible for not doing background checks on all the attendees.
 
kirbyrj said:
News flash...you leave your own home and you are no longer in a "safe space." Deal with it.

Unless there is something grossly negligent that EA and Chicago Pizza did (unlikely), this should go nowhere.
Click to expand...
Feel free to say the exact same thing when a relative of yours gets on board a plane without security screening and they get blown up. Checking for weapons is always the responsibility of the venue, not the random people showing up at said venue.
 
DedEmbryonicCe11 said:
Feel free to say the exact same thing when a relative of yours gets on board a plane without security screening and they get blown up. Checking for weapons is always the responsibility of the venue, not the random people showing up at said venue.
Click to expand...

1). Stop making everything an emotional argument, "What if you're relative..." Even wikipedia knows this is ridiculous: "Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence." Here's a factual statement: "You are more likely to be killed in a car crash than you are by a gun wielding individual by a over a 3 to 1 margin. (~37,000 by car, ~11,000 gun homicides according to 2016 data)." Here's an emotional statement: "Feel free to say the exact same thing when a relative of yours gets on board a plane without security screening and they get blown up." See the difference?

2). Checking for weapons? So what is your cut off? Anytime there is the possibility of 50 or more people in the same place the venue is required to do a pat down for the good of all the patrons? Supermarket? Out to dinner with your significant other? On your way into work? Why is there a big push to make someone other than the individual responsible for the actions of said individual?

3). Unfortunately, there are risks that come with living in a free society. Tragic events happen, but the answer isn't always making society less free because of a horrible incident or individual.
 
kirbyrj said:
1). Stop making everything an emotional argument, "What if you're relative..." Even wikipedia knows this is ridiculous: "Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence." Here's a factual statement: "You are more likely to be killed in a car crash than you are by a gun wielding individual by a over a 3 to 1 margin. (~37,000 by car, ~11,000 gun homicides according to 2016 data)." Here's an emotional statement: "Feel free to say the exact same thing when a relative of yours gets on board a plane without security screening and they get blown up." See the difference?
Click to expand...
Way to deflect. Do you let your relatives drive without a seatbelt on? Do you quote those same statistics every time they do or do you keep your trap shut because you honestly don't care as long as it doesn't poke a particular bias of yours?
 
DedEmbryonicCe11 said:
Way to deflect. Do you let your relatives drive without a seatbelt on? Do you quote those same statistics every time they do or do you keep your trap shut because you honestly don't care as long as it doesn't poke a particular bias of yours?
Click to expand...

The statistics are important because it shows how this is a non-issue. ~11,000 gun homicides of which ~8,500 or so are gang related, so ~2,500 homicides a year in a country of 325,000,000 people. Attacking me isn't going to change the statistics nor my belief that society shouldn't be subject to TSA style screenings, pat downs, etc. because of the 1 in 130,000 chance of getting killed as long as I don't engage in gang related activity (compared to a 1 in 8,700 chance of a car crash death).

It's actually funny because you think I'm the one with the bias.
 
With more guns on the streets for every single man, woman and child to have more than one - regulation is pointless. It is easier to get a gun illegally that it is legal. Stop selling all guns right now and it would not change that fact. It is quite apparent that your personal safety is your own responsibility so act accordingly. Go to a gun range where everyone is armed and you will never meet group of more polite people in the world. Coincidence?
 
DedEmbryonicCe11 said:
Feel free to say the exact same thing when a relative of yours gets on board a plane without security screening and they get blown up. Checking for weapons is always the responsibility of the venue, not the random people showing up at said venue.
Click to expand...
And if you as a person know they aren't checking for weapons? Is it still the venues fault that you decided to "risk it" ?
 
Mega6 said:
It is easier to get a gun illegally that it is legal.
Click to expand...
Is it though? Just to give you an extreme example, I live in California... hell I live in the Peoples Republic of San Francisco where no gun sales are permitted. So I hop in a car drive a grand total of 15- 20 minutes to a city that does allow gun sales, pick one out, give them my driver's license to scan, wait 10 days, and get my gun. Now if I wanted one illegally I would have no idea where to go (I'm not counting the friends I know who have guns), sketchy part of town? ask if anyone has any guns for sale? If it's in San Francisco parking is going to be a bigger hassle than getting the gun, sure if you KNOW where to get illegal guns (you know a guy who knows a guy) then sure it may be easier. If you consider waiting 10 days makes getting a gun "hard" then sure it's easier getting a gun illegal (assuming you know a guy who knows a guy).
 
Makaveli@BETA said:
This is an assumption.

I never said anything like this.

I do feel there should have been more security at this event and see a possible case here, we shall see how it plays out.
Click to expand...

I mean, fist fights break out all the time in those fucking things. To not have SOME kind of measure is pretty ridiculous. I don't think anyone advocates TSA level check ins, but some sort of over sight for immediate issues is something that events tend to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top