Mass Shooting in Las Vegas

[Joey D]

And before the "Free Speech" argument.
A news company has to report factual news to the public, anything else that has not been proven is pretty much gossip and should be marked as such.

They don't though. A news outlet is under no obligation to report factual news outside journalistic ethics. However, they can be sued for libel or slander depending on the party they incorrectly portray.

The US could never make a law preventing media from doing that, it would be unconstitutional and never hold up in court.

 

[stonesfan129]

They don't though. A news outlet is under no obligation to report factual news outside journalistic ethics. However, they can be sued for libel or slander depending on the party they incorrectly portray.

The US could never make a law preventing media from doing that, it would be unconstitutional and never hold up in court.

Libel relates to statements made in print or online; slander applies to oral statements. Both are difficult to establish in the U.S., where the person suing has the burden of proof. Claims are easier to prove in many other countries, since the person accused of libel or slander has to prove that the disputed statement is true.

In order win a lawsuit in the U.S., the statement must have been negligently made and resulted in harm to the person defamed. Public figures have an even higher threshold to meet, and must show the person making the statement knew it to be false or had a reckless disregard for the truth.

So yes, a media conglomerate could be sued for libel or slander. There probably have been many cases where they have. But it is extremely difficult to prove, plus you're up against a large company with far more money and a very good legal team. And then on top of that, all they would have to do is say that what they reported is an opinion piece and they never meant to sell it off as fact.

 

[Obelisk]

they never meant to sell it off as fact.

Despite the fact that I have yet to see a single tabloid report an article as being an opinion piece?

Yeah, that's a lie against their own lie. Of course, if the newspaper is able to prove that it is fact instead of resorting to the "this is an opinion" story, props to them. Otherwise, tag me as skeptical.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Both are difficult to establish in the U.S., where the person suing has the burden of proof. Claims are easier to prove in many other countries, since the person accused of libel or slander has to prove that the disputed statement is true.

That's the case in most countries, but it's not as black-and-white as that. For the slander/libel to occur some harm has to be demonstrated to the injured party. That becomes irrelevant if the slanderer/libeler produces evidence that their claims were reportage of true fact. That proof of fact doesn't have to happen for harm to be proved but the injured party then has to show beyond reasonable doubt that the claims aren't true.

 

[x3ra]

Helicopter problems in Las Vegas. What no transponders!! Interesting

 

[TenEightyOne]

Helicopter problems in Las Vegas. What no transponders!! Interesting

Not all helicopters have transponders and GA helis don't necessarily show up on ADS-B flight trackers. That video is ridiculous.

Have you considered that there's a huge definitely-no-transponder helicopter area about 1,200 from the shooting?

 

[x3ra]

Good point. Found this as well, which explains the above post so thank you, https://aviation.stackexchange.com/...-flights-not-appear-in-online-flight-trackers.

I'm still at a loss for motive though.

 

[Sanji Himura]

MGM actually sues the victims of the shooting, claiming no liability...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-news-mgm-resorts-las-vegas-shooting-20180716-story.html

 

[Dennisch]

MGM actually sues the victims of the shooting, claiming no liability...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-news-mgm-resorts-las-vegas-shooting-20180716-story.html

2 middle fingers in the air.

 

[Johnnypenso]

MGM actually sues the victims of the shooting, claiming no liability...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-news-mgm-resorts-las-vegas-shooting-20180716-story.html

It's a legal tactic designed to head the potential plaintiffs off at the pass.

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.

According to the statement, “The Federal Court is an appropriate venue for these cases and provides those affected with the opportunity for a timely resolution. Years of drawn out litigation and hearings are not in the best interest of victims, the community and those still healing.”

Source

Of course they'll be vilified on social media by armchair lawyers and internet legal scholars but they have to protect the interests of their shareholders or they are negligent in their duties.

 

[Liquid]

Forgive me for any misinterpretation but if a security company has been certified for "protecting against and responding to acts of mass injury and destruction" how would they ever be given protection from liability? And why? Just because they're in the business of protection, that doesn't mean that they can't fail.

That seems to suggest that the company can never do any wrong; it either protects you or doesn't and if it doesn't you can't do anything about it because someone or something has deemed CS Corp. protected from liability.

And I understand why the security company would want the legal protection; to cover their bases, sure, but what I don't understand is how they have been awarded this protection and for what reasons was it given? It seems so incorrect.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Forgive me for any misinterpretation but if a security company has been certified for "protecting against and responding to acts of mass injury and destruction" how would they ever be given protection from liability? And why? Just because they're in the business of protection, that doesn't mean that they can't fail.

That seems to suggest that the company can never do any wrong; it either protects you or doesn't and if it doesn't you can't do anything about it because someone or something has deemed CS Corp. protected from liability.

And I understand why the security company would want the legal protection; to cover their bases, sure, but what I don't understand is how they have been awarded this protection and for what reasons was it given? It seems so incorrect.

I assume the court will decide but there is already legislation in place:

“Plaintiffs have no liability of any kind to defendants,” the complaints argue.

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.”

I'm not sure what the reasoning was behind limiting liability in the post-911 era. I believe they are referring to the SAFETY act of 2002 but I could be wrong:

In the wake of 9/11, Congress passed the Homeland Security Act of 2002 with a little known section called the "Support AntiTerrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002,” or the “SAFETY Act.”1 The purpose of the SAFETY Act was to encourage the development and deployment of anti-terrorism products and services (collectively referred to by the statute and herein as “technologies”) by granting various risk management protections. The SAFETY Act, when enacted, held tremendous promise for protecting sellers of new, as well as established, technologies that were needed to combat terrorism and remove impediments to bringing such technologies to and/or maintaining their place in the market. It did so by establishing two levels of protection from third-party liability – Designation and Certification – that may arise from injury, loss of life, or damage to property or businesses arising out of an act of terrorism where the technology was deployed in defense against, response to or recovery from such an act.

So it seems as if they were trying to encourage swift development of new anti-terrorist technology and in return granted limited liability. Right or wrong the legislation exists as part of the Homeland Security Act. Whether it applies in this particular case is open to interpretation.

 

[Joey D]

I get why MGM is doing it, but I can't imagine the bad press is actually worth it. Seems like they'd be better off just reaching a settlement with the victims and their families and calling it a day.

Although I guess I don't really agree that MGM doesn't hold liability here, or I guess rather its security company. It failed to provide adequate security and one would think if you have "anti-terrorism" technology you'd do a better job at preventing a terrorist attack. But I guess you could argue that this wasn't a terrorist attack since it wasn't politically or ideologically motivated.

I think there's probably a case here and it'd be really interesting to see it play out.

 

[FrankMurphy]

Not all helicopters have transponders and GA helis don't necessarily show up on ADS-B flight trackers. That video is ridiculous.

Have you considered that there's a huge definitely-no-transponder helicopter area about 1,200 from the shooting?

The hotel is directly in Class Bravo airspace, which you cannot operate in unless you have a mode c transponder and clearance, The Bravo airspace is from the surface to 10,000 feet and extends in an almost circular shape to about 5 miles out from the airport which in itself is one road away from the Grand. All helicopters would show up on both approach and the airports radar.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The hotel is directly in Class Bravo airspace, which you cannot operate in unless you have a mode c transponder and clearance, The Bravo airspace is from the surface to 10,000 feet and extends in an almost circular shape to about 5 miles out from the airport which in itself is one road away from the Grand. All helicopters would show up on both approach and the airports radar.

Quite, although it's astonishing that you registered here to post that. The comment I was answering sometime last year was about helicopters across Las Vegas in general. You'll know of course that the Bravo floor is 4,500 (and increasing) after the central exclusion. I don't think anybody was talking about helicopters on the roof of the hotel.

You'll note that ADS-B is not carried by US military helicopters and that there are a significant number of those operating close to McCarron. While they should be avoiding Bravo airspace it's been suggested that they don't always observe such avoidance, particularly in VFR conditions.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I get why MGM is doing it, but I can't imagine the bad press is actually worth it. Seems like they'd be better off just reaching a settlement with the victims and their families and calling it a day.

Although I guess I don't really agree that MGM doesn't hold liability here, or I guess rather its security company. It failed to provide adequate security and one would think if you have "anti-terrorism" technology you'd do a better job at preventing a terrorist attack. But I guess you could argue that this wasn't a terrorist attack since it wasn't politically or ideologically motivated.

I think there's probably a case here and it'd be really interesting to see it play out.

If MGM ends up tied up in long term litigation it could cost them tens of millions in legal fees win or lose and potentially billions in settlement fees, along with publicly having to accept blame. Heading it off at the pass with some "bad press" is likely the much lower risk option.

 

[Danoff]

If MGM ends up tied up in long term litigation it could cost them tens of millions in legal fees win or lose and potentially billions in settlement fees, along with publicly having to accept blame. Heading it off at the pass with some "bad press" is likely the much lower risk option.

I like how the notion of "bad press" applies to the idea of suing people who were shot or shot at by someone in your hotel. That seems less like bad press and more like pure evil (also I'm confused about how you can bring a lawsuit against a group of people, unless they have some sort of official organization, and I'm confused about how you can bring a lawsuit against a group that has not harmed you).

 

[Johnnypenso]

I like how the notion of "bad press" applies to the idea of suing people who were shot or shot at by someone in your hotel. That seems less like bad press and more like pure evil (also I'm confused about how you can bring a lawsuit against a group of people, unless they have some sort of official organization, and I'm confused about how you can bring a lawsuit against a group that has not harmed you).

Seems more like the lesser of two evils in the litigious world that Americans live in. I'd guess they did some analysis and figured that if they lost a general lawsuit against them it would mean bankruptcy and ruin but if they can head it off at the pass the kefuffle over suing victims will disappear quickly in the 24 hour news cycle. I'm not sure how old you are but 20 or 30 years ago a story like this would probably have caused some sustained outrage and a big piece on 60 minutes watched by 10's of millions of people. Now it's just another soundbite in the 24 hour news cycle, soon to be replaced by Trump's latest tweet or whatever is dragged out of the Twitter vault to be paraded around for 🤬, giggles and faux outrage. Tittilation is all the rage these days. Neener, neener, neener generates a lot of clicks.

 

[Danoff]

Seems more like the lesser of two evils in the litigious world that Americans live in. I'd guess they did some analysis and figured that if they lost a general lawsuit against them it would mean bankruptcy and ruin but if they can head it off at the pass the kefuffle over suing victims will disappear quickly in the 24 hour news cycle. I'm not sure how old you are but 20 or 30 years ago a story like this would probably have caused some sustained outrage and a big piece on 60 minutes watched by 10's of millions of people. Now it's just another soundbite in the 24 hour news cycle, soon to be replaced by Trump's latest tweet or whatever is dragged out of the Twitter vault to be paraded around for 🤬, giggles and faux outrage. Tittilation is all the rage these days. Neener, neener, neener generates a lot of clicks.

Ok but... what about the part where one of your guests shoots a bunch of people up and you want to do the right thing, not just for brand image, but because you have an opportunity to do so?

 

[TexRex]

Ok but... what about the part where one of your guests shoots a bunch of people up and you want to do the right thing, not just for brand image, but because you have an opportunity to do so?

 

[Danoff]

So, to be clear here for anyone scratching their heads. I'm not advocating that MGM is doing something criminal, or something that should be criminal, or that they should be legally held accountable (I don't know enough to know whether that's the case). I'm calling them jerks. One of my favorite things about America is all of the philanthropy and aid that freely flows out of generosity rather than compulsion. And it's because I enjoy seeing that that I dislike seeing a company head the opposite direction.

 

[TexRex]

So, to be clear here for anyone scratching their heads. I'm not advocating that MGM is doing something criminal, or something that should be criminal, or that they should be legally held accountable (I don't know enough to know whether that's the case). I'm calling them jerks. One of my favorite things about America is all of the philanthropy and aid that freely flows out of generosity rather than compulsion. And it's because I enjoy seeing that that I dislike seeing a company head the opposite direction.

I appreciate every bit of that. I'd have to defer to the "experts," but it seems to me that one of the symptoms of a supposed postmodern society is a severe scruples deficiency.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Ok but... what about the part where one of your guests shoots a bunch of people up and you want to do the right thing, not just for brand image, but because you have an opportunity to do so?

Well if they are smart that is probably the fallback position. You go to court, you win your case to prevent a class action lawsuit, then you set aside a hundred million dollars or so for the victims.

 

[Danoff]

Well if they are smart that is probably the fallback position.

I think that's what I'm contesting. If they're smart, they realize that there is an opportunity to do something great instead of grabbing their purse strings and being jackasses.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I think that's what I'm contesting. If they're smart, they realize that there is an opportunity to do something great instead of grabbing their purse strings and being jackasses.

It would be great of they set up a victim fund without admitting fault but on the other hand it would only fuel the outrage machine because there is no amount that would ever be enough to satisfy half the population. It'll become political, everyone will take sides and it'll turn into a :censored:show. I'd guess they've probably conducted some secret polling and gauged the mood of the public and thought this was the best way forward. It's a sad way to be IMO but they are playing the hand they're dealt.

 

[Danoff]

It's a sad way to be IMO but they are playing the hand they're dealt.

I see what you did there.

 

[Dennisch]

I don't see why the hotel would be to blame for anything. A guest should be able to walk in and out of the building as he/she pleases. That this one had gone bit overboard with his right to bear arms is not the problem of the hotel.

 

[PocketZeven]

I don't see why the hotel would be to blame for anything. A guest should be able to walk in and out of the building as he/she pleases. That this one had gone bit overboard with his right to bear arms is not the problem of the hotel.

That's because they cant blame it on the 2nd amendment, they start the blame game... The gunseller, the guys employer, his family, the hotel etc.

 

[Danoff]

I don't see why the hotel would be to blame for anything. A guest should be able to walk in and out of the building as he/she pleases. That this one had gone bit overboard with his right to bear arms is not the problem of the hotel.

I agree that on the face of it the hotel would seem to be blameless. There may be a catch if they can be shown to be grossly negligent in their own policies. Given that their position appears to be pretty strong, it only makes it that much more depressing to me that they didn't seize the opportunity to be more compassionate and step up to the crisis that occurred on their property and at their doorstep.

 

[Dennisch]

That's because they cant blame it on the 2nd amendment, they start the blame game... The gunseller, the guys employer, his family, the hotel etc.

Unless he broke the law relating to him owning guns, the only one they can blame is the shooter. If he did break a law you can blame the agency responsible.

I agree that on the face of it the hotel would seem to be blameless. There may be a catch if they can be shown to be grossly negligent in their own policies. Given that their position appears to be pretty strong, it only makes it that much more depressing to me that they didn't seize the opportunity to be more compassionate and step up to the crisis that occurred on their property and at their doorstep.

That probably would have been the right thing to do, but that's, in my eyes, taking partial blame for something that's a risk of the laws and freedoms of the USA.

If they are smart, they'll donate a load of money towards something like mental health research or something. Just to be nice