“The 15-week long trial of James Holmes concluded on Friday after the jury failed to reach a unanimous decision and delivered a sentence of  life in prison without the possibility of parole,” denverpost.com reports. “But the conclusion of the trial acts as a major stepping stone for victims and survivors to move forward with civil lawsuits filed about thee years ago.” The judge in the civil suit has lifted the gag order prohibiting the lawyers from gathering evidence against Cinemark for failing to protect Aurora cinema goers. What didn’t Cinemark do that they should have done – short of proclaiming the cinema a “gun free zone”? Watch this space. Even more interesting: another suit field against . . .

the Colorado University psychiatrist treating Holmes. That legal action maintains that Dr. Lynne Fenton [above] should have placed the killer on a 72-hour psychiatric hold. At the least. denverpost.com reports that

On June 11, less than a month before the July 20 rampage that killed 12 and injured 70, Holmes told Fenton “that he fantasized about killing a lot of people,” according to the suit.

Fenton alerted CU’s Behavioral Evaluation and Threat Assessment team about Holmes but went no further, the suit said.

When campus police officer Lynn Whitten asked Fenton if she should apprehend Holmes and place him on a psychiatric hold, “Fenton rejected the idea,” according to the five-page lawsuit.

“Fenton was presented with the opportunity to use … reasonable care when the Colorado University police offered to apprehend James Holmes and place him on a psychiatric hold,” the suit says.

Dr. Fenton established and led the aforementioned Behavioral Evaluation and Threat Assessment team. Given the fact that Holmes wasn’t shy about confessing his murderous fantasies and his previous [known] suicide attempts, one wonders what information her team considered actionable. There is a “paper trail” out there, somewhere, which CU has withheld.

The university removed any e-mails that deal with Holmes’ mental health, the crime and any personal communication involving Holmes. A number of e-mails from Holmes’ account around June 11 — when Holmes is alleged to have made threats to a professor — were redacted.

Equally, Dr. Fenton (and Colorado University) claimed that a notebook Holmes sent Dr. Fenton describing his homicidal plans in detail – complete with hand-drawn pictures – was lost in the campus mailroom – only to be discovered, Hillary Clinton-like, the day after the attack. True story?

The burden of proof here is a high one. Successfully suing someone for failing to take an action is a lot harder than suing someone for taking an action that led to harm. Still, civil suits are a different animal from criminal prosecutions. Again, watch this space.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

72 COMMENTS

    • Ahhh, I was thinking the same thing dogman. But to Roberts question, it will be interesting to learn what is actionable by CU standards but in the end, these people are not mind readers. If this case is successful against Fenton, then psychiatrists are going to issue orders to put just about everyone on a “psychiatric hold” whatever that means. Additionally, gun owners are going to be loath to see a shrink for any reason lest they be put on “hold”.

      • I would expect that a 72-hour “hold” is only going to be effective in catching the most absolutely batshit-insane people, anyway. A lot of psychopaths and sociopaths are fairly adept at mimicking normal human behavior, and could probably fake their way through 72 hours of observation. As you said, psychiatrists are not mind readers, and most are probably going to err on the side of the patient and not want to lock someone up unless they are aggressively violent and dangerous.

        We can second-guess after the incident all we want to, but the fact is, human behavior is extremely difficult to predict, and locking people up because they might do something bad is a tricky road to start down.

  2. I look forward to this PHd explaining herself. The university has “deep ” pockets just like cities when they settle a law suite.

    • That’s the only reason this suit is going forward. If she was in a private practice her insurance would most likely pay the limits of her policy without going to trial. Going after her personnel assets for any excessive at that point would be pointless and vindictive.

    • Most state universities have some form of “immunity” from suit with damages against them limited/capped by a State “Tort Claims Act.”

      Ultimately, there is no evidence that the Phd ignored her responsibilities. Based upon all the evidence available to her, she made a judgement call and was wrong.

      If she is hammered in the civil suits, we will see therapists respond by ordering holds just to protect themselves. Once the patient is in the hospital, the therapist is off the hook if the hospital’s doctors release him/her.

      • There will be a significant question as to whether or not the university is covered under the Colorado Government Immunity Act, and whether or not that extends to university personnel acting in their official capacity.

        “In 1979, the Colorado state legislature enacted the Colorado Government Immunity Act (GIA). The GIA limited the government’s immunity, allowing it to be liable for certain actions, but also protected the government by placing a cap on the amount of damages that could be awarded to claimants. On April 19, 2013, Governor Hickenlooper signed SB 13-023 into law, which amends Colorado’s GIA. The amendment increases the caps on damages from $150,000 to $350,000 for single claims, and $600,000 to $999,000 for multiple claims. The increases became effective July 1, 2013. ”

        Source: http://www.mydenveraccidentlawfirm.com/news-resources/changes-to-government-immunity-caps-in-colorado/

    • As a former CU student and “trouble maker” I had a couple of interactions with Dr. Fenton myself. It was the HSC’s policy to send all students to see her regarding all things from insanity to anger management (as in my case). My personal interactions with her were positive and she was very professional and thorough. For my case and the other peers that I knew who was required to be evaluated by Dr. Fenton, we all thought she was fair and just. I am sad to see that she has been put in this position, just like a gun, taking the blame for a crazy persons action. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Don’t place the blame on anything other than the offender. As for the missing documents and other stuff I have a few doubts that the school tried to separate itself as much as possible and remove anything that would create a negative image.

  3. In my mind, an adult’s safety is firstly and fore-mostly their own responsibility.

    • Until they’re told by an establishment they wish to do business with that they can’t enter with the means for their own self protection. At that point the business should be responsible for the safety of their disarmed patrons.

      • In my opinion, you are still responsible for the decision to go into a situation/place where you can’t defend yourself well.

        • +1

          Those who think that their voluntary entry into a business imposes a requirement on that business to spend money on security, are basically spoiled children. They can choose to go elsewhere, instead.

        • You guys are completely missing the point. It’s not about which businesses we should or should not patronize. I walk right by gun free zone signs almost everyday. The reason these lawsuits are good for us is that they might force these businesses to realize that their responsibility does not end at a stupid sign. They can’t take away the right to defend yourself and then claim zero responsibility. The point is to force them to make a choice. To either provide a real, armed response to potential threats or to (hopefully) just allow people to protect themselves. Just following the law and allowing the people to protect themselves is far less costly after all to any company because they don’t have to pay for the security.

        • They can’t take away the right to defend yourself and then claim zero responsibility.

          But that’s not what they are doing.

          They are refusing to let you on their property unless you abide by their conditions. They aren’t taking anything away from you. They haven’t disarmed you.

          I hate GFZs too, but private property owners have the right to set one up and even say “enter at your own risk” to boot.

          The best response is a boycott. But I suspect not enough people actually care like you and I do, to make such a boycott stick. And if that’s the case, not enough people care enough to get a law passed, either. That sucks, but that’s life. Just stay out of those establishments.

        • Stevie, if a business can be legally held liable because I trip and break my arm on their property, they absolutely should be held liable if they insist that I’m not allowed to defend myself in case of an emergency and something bad happens. Yes, private businesses absolutely have the right to say “No guns” – however, it’s not a violation of their rights to say “If you choose to tell your customers that they cannot defend themselves, then you must provide adequate security”. They have the choice to decide to let their customers be responsible for their own safety or to take responsibility for the safety of their customers. What they shouldn’t get to do is create sitting duck zones and then wave their hands and say “Not my fault!” when something bad happens as a result of their policies.

        • That opinion doesn’t agree with generally accepted case law where it comes to other issues. Doing business is an economic decision. If the courts took that attitude, than to be consistent, if you didn’t want Black Lung Disease you shouldn’t have become a coal miner. That’s not how it works, except of course with gun free zones. There the business owner has an immunity that not only contradicts case law in other areas, but flies right in the face of the constitution.

      • In the 80s, a woman went to a post office island in a large shopping mall in Irving, Texas and was killed at knifepoint. The shopping center lost a $3.15M civil suit for failure to provide security. Yes, it can and does happen. The husband collected even though he was the prime suspect in a murder for hire plot. We could not prove he was involved so he walked away a rich man.

  4. If they are going to declare their business a “gun free zone” they should be required to provide armed security.

    • People should be free to have and go into a gun free zone without even armed guards there. It is a choice. For me, armed security is not as good as me being armed.

      • @actionphysicalman……..I agree with you 100% but, I think you are missing the point in this particular instance. Currently if a business feels that they want to be gun free they simply write their company policy to reflect their inclinations and then put a sign on their front door (or don’t). They feel that their responsibility ends there. That it’s not required of them to protect their patrons. We believe that they are wrong. If a company feels that they can restrict the rights of their customers to protect themselves in an increasingly dangerous society then they should be responsible for those lives while on their premises and should provide some sort of real, armed protection to stop any threat that comes through the front door. YES….of course we would hope that these business’s will see the light (after losing a few court battles and suffering the financial consequences) and realize that all they need do to limit their liability and protect their customers from harm is to follow the law. Just allow customers to carry and protect themselves. If they do not see the light and elect to provide an armed security presence then so be it but, it’s better than that pathetic sign.

        • The patron assumes the risk when they voluntarily walk through the door.

          You don’t want the risk? Then stay out.

        • It’s an easier argument to just rule the entire concept of “gun-free zones” unconstitutional. Especially now that the majority of states are starting to allow CC (at the least) and more and more states are seeing the “common sense” in Constitutional Carry when state-specific reciprocity is finally called out as a redundant system.

          I mean, really, how do you argue against the right to self-defense? The alternative is to flee or seek cover, all the while your chances of being injured or dying are high enough in an active shooter scenario, or rely on the police that won’t be there in time to save you. All terrible options.

    • If they are going to declare their business a “gun free zone” they should be required to provide armed security.

      Oh and let’s have a doctor on staff in case you have a heart attack.

      Where the hell do you get off, trying to dictate to someone that he must hire additional employees? Which, by the way, would force him to raise his prices? (I’ll bet you’d then bitch about how overpriced the place is.)

      If you don’t like their rules, don’t go there. No one is sticking a gun to your head and requiring you to enter the premises.

      • @SteveInCo…….you’re argument is no better than mine and you know it. By using your logic car manufacturer’s could make cars as unsafe as they wanted to. It should be up to us to boycott said manufacturer if their cars / policies are killing people. That’s not the way it works. The government can and does impose restrictions on potentially dangerous products to make them safe. A theater may be private property but, it is non-the-less a product that they are selling and comes with it a reasonable assumption of safety.

        • Actually, you might be surprised that I don’t believe in product safety regulations either. I think such things could be handled by the private market, as is already done by Underwriter’s Laboratories in regards to electrical equipment. Sure, that means the onus is on you to look for the inspection sticker before you step into the restaurant or buy the car or even the house, but that beats the living crap out of the graft and bribery that accompanies a government inspection. (A government inspector, from whom there is no recourse whatsoever, can, if he is the corrupt sort, extract all sorts of extras from a businessman, through either the threat of being downchecked and shut down, or to let violations slide.)

        • The product the theater is selling is a movie and treats, not security from unforeseeable crazy people intent on doing harm. The essential principle of premises liability is that the premises owner/occupant knew (or by a reasonable inspection should have known) of a dangerous condition and failed to use reasonable care to obviate the danger. What facts can you identify that would establish that this theater knew or should have known that Holmes (or some other paranoid schizophrenic) was reasonably likely to stage firearms outside the fire entrance, and then use those firearms to attack patrons? (I suspect that the theater had no notice at all.) There is a rich litigation history of premises owners being sued for injuries resulting from intentional (criminal) misconduct of third persons, and quite frankly, there is rarely found a duty to provide security (or more usually lighting) in the absence of actual knowledge that criminal misconduct has occurred on or adjacent to the premises and that there were means for the owner to reduce the risk of harm.

          Further, proximate causation is speculative. The plaintiffs would need to prove that there was a patron present for the movie at the time of the attack who would have been armed but for the gun ban signs and who would have successfully acted to end Holmes before (any one particular) person was shot. similar claims, e.g., if you had had “adequate” security I would not have been attacked” have been rejected by the California Supreme Court in attacks at malls. The Court specifically refused to impose a duty on the property owner to hire armed guards, concluding, in part, that the alleged benefit (that this woman would not have been raped at her place of employment in one of the stores) was speculative.

          From a legal perspective, as opposed to an emotional “I don’t think they should be able to disarm me”, the action against the theater is frivolous.

        • Mark, you obviously have knowledge of the law on your side that I do not possess and maybe that’s why my argument is not coming across the way I would like. However, I still find that you are ultimately misunderstanding the point of this discussion. I will concede that the theater is likely not responsible for the safety of their patrons. As such any lawsuit might be frivolous but, it is by no means pointless. The ultimate goal here should not be to extract money from the theater (the lawsuit itself could achieve that), nor is it desirable to force them to provide security which, based on your post I will concede is unlikely to work. The ultimate goal that I think any lawsuit should be attempting to achieve is to sufficiently annoy any GFZ business until they realize that the easiest and least expensive course of action is simply to do nothing. Just abide by and respect their state’s gun laws. I realize that they are by no means breaking the law by posting the GFZ signs but, they most certainly are choosing a side. If they would just follow the lead of Wal-Mart and others this would be a non-issue. People and businesses get sued everyday for the most trivial of reasons. Often times the result is an out of court settlement that has nothing to do with who was right or wrong or what the law says. I will concede that you have the law on your side but, can a business’s policies not be changed by pushing the right buttons sufficiently? I feel like I’m borrowing from the Left’s playbook here but, so be it. I say fight fire with fire. Sue the bejesus out of them! Your the man with the law book in your hand……tell me why it won’t work.

    • I think some people are missing the point. Yes in the end you are responsible for your own safety. However, if you impose a real financial cost for putting up a gun free sign, i.e. x number armed guards per sq ft, metal detectors at all entrances, etc, you would see a lot fewer gun free businesses. If they refuse “common sense” defensive measures I’m sure their insurance company will be happy to raise their premiums to cover any future law suits. In the end it will make business sense for most place to allow guns if they like them or not.

      • Except that “making” them supply security is just as wrong as making them provide health care coverage. It’s an artificial cost imposed by government.

        The cost of their decision is you taking your business elsewhere. Anything else is you trying to impose your preferences by force.

  5. I really hope and pray that one of the victims goes after Cinemark for failure to provide armed security since they banned patron’s right to self defense by posting the theater as a gun free zone.

    Someday, some crackerjack lawyer is going to make an issue of this, win a butt load of money for the victim and end gun free zones forever.

    Sooner rather than later would be a good thing

    • It will never happen, because Cinemark will simply argue the patron didn’t have to be there.

      And they’d be right.

      • Exactly! Businesses are private property and they have a right to treat it as such. If you feel that going to see a movie at a theater is so dangerous then wait until it comes out on DVD or online. In my state the no gun signs hold little weight so screw them but if that’s not the case in your location then avoid the theater or business. It’s crazy that we want the government to swoop in on this issue when it’s so easily avoidable.

        • Not asking for government intervention, I believe that if you choose to remove my ability to actively defend my life you are therefore taking that duty upon yourself. A sign is not that due diligence. The signs carry force of law where I’m at and the nearest theater that doesn’t have a sign is an hour and a half away. So the sign effectively discriminates against me by placing onerous financial burden to access there commodity a movie.

          So yes if they take my gun they should have at a minimum metal detectors on all doors. Or be held liable financially through a civil suit.

          The increase in movie theater shootings gives me a credible claim that they are aware of incidents and took no steps to prevent it at there establishments

      • So do you support HOAs or landlords banning gun ownership? After all, you don’t have to live there. What about a state completely banning firearms? After all, you don’t have to live in that state.

        • >> So do you support HOAs or landlords banning gun ownership? After all, you don’t have to live there.

          I don’t support them, but I recognize their right to do so. Just as I have the right to ban anyone NOT carrying a gun from my house if I wanted to, for example.

          HOAs in particular are asinine, but that’s exactly why you don’t live in one. It was a major factor for me when I was looking for a house.

  6. Regarding Dr. Fenton, she tried to warn the parents and the school. It’s a HUGE deal to commit someone, not like some folks are portraying it to be.

    The lawyers will be only too happy to rack up hours (and hours and hours) leading the charge to crucify her…

    Regarding whether the theater is responsible – I recognize that my protection is my responsibility. If I choose to go into a GFZ, I accept the risk.

    • So what you are saying is that people should be suing the university and the parents, since they both had the power to do something and yet did nothing.

      • Holmes was an adult. His parents bear no legal liability for his actions. In fact, they had no legal ability to have him committed to a mental institution. Absent legal authority over his conduct, an absence of liability necessarily follows.

  7. What Cinemark did is described in 18 USC 241.

    They should be fully prosecuted with all the other conspirators.

  8. So the law suit suggests that holding MR Holmes would have been “commonsense”? That’s just crazy talk.

  9. Even if… Do you think some barely sentient rent-a-cop is a suitable defense? If I am forbidden from carrying, I don’t go. Metal Detectors and rent-a-cops are still vastly inferior to ME.

    Besides, it’s better watching movies at home. Theaters suck.

  10. Maybe we should give movie theatres a pass on meeting fire and building codes on the premise that you have a choice in going there or not. For that matter why not give restaurants a pass on meeting sanitation inspections and airlines a pass on safety inspections. Why should airline pilots have to have a license? You don’t want the risk, don’t fly there, don’t eat there and watch your movies at home.

    • Interesting point and one I hadn’t thought of. I’d think that safety codes are a bit less obvious though. I have no way of knowing wether the sprinklers are operational and therefor a mandate and inspection makes sense. Same thing with the airlines. In that case I’d say that aren’t easily avoidable. There isn’t generally another realistic way to visit a dying mother in Tokyo for example so I’m more likely to be forced into flying vs going to see Jurrassic park 17 in the theater. Now, in that case if they had a no “fire safety/suppression system on site” sign then I could choose to enter or not. I like your angle but I fear it isn’t apples to apples.

      • Two points:

        Inspections can be (and are, in some cases) handled by the private market. Underwriter’s Laboratories inspects home electrical devices. There’s no reason this model couldn’t be extended to restaurants, etc., if the government would allow that to happen. You as a customer would have to look for the inspection sticker, instead of assuming a government inspector did his job and wasn’t bribed, or didn’t demand an extra “donation” from the business owner or be shut down.

        Second point, you’re way behind the times, Jurassic Park 17 came out three years ago, they’re on Jurassic Park 23 already. 😛

        • @SteveInColorado…….ok so, by your own logic……if we can’t force a business to protect it’s customers from potential harm then we can force them to put up a truth in advertising sign that reads: “This is a GUN FREE ZONE. You may not carry a firearm in this establishment for self protection. We don NOT however, have any armed security presence or metal detectors so, if a criminal chooses to come in and KILL YOU there is nothing we can do about it. Proceed at your own risk”. LOL – long sign but, I’m actually ok with this. Make it 8′ x 8′ in big bold red letters and we’ll see how much longer gun free zones last. While we’re at it….let’s put them up at every school.

        • That would be a better solution…but I am leery of requiring them to post or not post any statement (other than avoiding outright fraud, which would involve posting an actual lie, not just not posting something that is true).

          Now an establishment that IS willing to let you carry can advertise that fact and shame their competitors.

          I think the real issue in many peoples’ minds (perhaps not yours) is fear that a boycott wouldn’t work, because not enough people care enough to make one stick. What percentage of people actually will change their habits?

          (A somewhat related point: Armed security would not, and COULD not, be required to engage in a gunfight against an attacker. Even cops are not required to protect you, why would anyone expect a security guard to do so? If someone actually were to say, “look, we’ll provide armed security” then the proper response would be to laugh in their faces at the security theater. But I think most people here realize this.)

          OK, I’m going to punch out…I have a long drive ahead of me today, and I really should have started it at least an hour ago. You’ll get the last word, but please don’t assume by my silence that I’d have no response.

        • No worries Steve…..good discussion. Believe it or not…..I lean libertarian. I don’t like government regulations one bit more than you do and think that any regulations imposed on a private property owner should be thought about long and hard. Here’s the thing though……libs use regulations / laws (constitutional or not) to make gun owners lives miserable every single day. So, for once, is it so horrible an idea to let a lawsuit like this fly and let the chips fall where they may? If the jury comes back and says that the theater owner did everything the law requires of them with regard to protecting their patrons then so be it! I’m ok with that. If on the other hand they come back and say that these guys knowingly put their customers lives at risk by not allowing them to defend themselves, provided no means of protection otherwise, and didn’t even inform them that they were unprotected then you know what? I’m ok with that too! Because here’s the thing….the latter decision might result in financial penalty and some burdens on private property owners but, it’s a huge win for gun owners / 2A proponents and that’s a compromise I’m willing to make.

        • Many things are/were privately owned until the government took over. There are plenty of private certifications that are well accepted. I think air traffic control here in Canada was done privately (I don’t know if it still is).

          I find it funny, on this website in particular where people are so distrustful of the gov, that people are saying “we need the gov to make us safer by forcing businesses to behave a certain way”.

          Cuz if the gov is good at anything it’s being reliable and honest and just generally successful at all it does, right? At least if you don’t like a private business you can choose not to give them your money, the gov will force you to pay for all the things they screw up and then give you no recourse except to sue them (if they’re not immune) and then pay off the judgment with our own money.

    • Building and fire codes are (a) mandated by law, and (b) failure to abide by them creates a dangerous condition of property for which the owner/occupant is responsible. Mr. Holmes was not a condition of the property, nor was there any law that required the theater to remove him. The property did not harm the theater goers, Mr. Holmes did. Why should the theater be responsible for the criminal misconduct of a patron? Is a restaurant legally liable for the misconduct of a patron? There is no connection between one and the other, and in any event, unlike products, liability is based on negligence, not strict liability.

  11. I’m glad I got to see the world (in the Navy) and did my partying years ago as for now I don’t go to public events & gatherings (not because I am afraid of “attacks” but all the frisking & anal probing violations of my rights). I neither need nor want anyone to feel they have to “protect” me. The so called terrorist are winning as all of our rights are being taken one-by-one. Now one theater chain is banning backpacks and others are hiring armed security. Next will be metal detectors & TSA. DHS has evolved into a massive taxpayer money pit that has no right even existing! The government gets bigger and bigger and we loose more.

  12. I don’t see how a cinema is allowed to void a persons constitutional right but a wedding cake baker, photographer, and caterer cant do the same? (Lets not even get into the discussion if gay marriage is a “right”.)

    But we all know the answer…..because the Left says so.

    • Your complaint about the inconsistency of the Left is well taken, but no constitutional right is voided in either case. The theater didn’t reach out and take your gun away, the theater set conditions on your entry onto their premises, you were free to say no and walk away, with your gun still strapped on. Similarly the baker should have had the right to refuse an order.

    • Discrimination based on sex, race, religion, national origin and sexual orientation are banned under federal law. These are called “suspect classifications” based on a history of discrimination. Owning and carrying firearms, at this point anyway, is not a listed “suspect classification” in the federal statute, and therefore there is no federal law violated by the exclusion of persons bearing arms.

      • It’s a good thing we have these awesome suspect classifications to ensure equal protection under the law.

        I guess if you aren’t classified by race, religion, gender etc you don’t merit that “equal” protection.

  14. Port Arthur sounds the same. Only TWO psychiatrists said the killer should be locked up before he… killed someone. And even after he did kill someone, there still wasnt anything done to lock him up.

  15. “The jury failed to reach a unanimous decision.” My faith in juries continues to decline.

    • From what I understand, it was unanimous that he was guilty, just not unanimous on the death penalty.

  16. From my experience Psychiatrists are apprehensive to hold people, this is common. They hear so many things which typically amount to rants I must assume it becomes difficult to separate. There is also a matter of funding and money regarding locking down or holding someone. Then you also may have the ACLU pounding down your door. So when it comes to preventative measures, (I’m stealing from the OR article) what would truly be preventative can be very difficult. That said, these are the issue society needs to work on, not wasted background checks.

  17. I used to be of the opinion that so-called gun free zone business’s should be responsible for your safety, since they have removed your means of self-protection, but if I feel that Luckygunner or the firearm manufacturer is not responsible for ammo or guns he used, then why should I hold Cinemark responsible for the location he used?

    Ultimately, we must all be responsible for our own decisions, whether to commit a tragic act or to put yourself in that position.

  18. “What didn’t Cinemark do that they should have done – short of proclaiming the cinema a “gun free zone”?”

    I don’t understand this sentence. In fact, that is exactly what Cinemark did — and all they did. As gun owners, we understand that if anything, this made them MORE culpable for the outcome, not LESS.

  19. Dr Fenton, the Behavioral Health and Threat Assessment Team and UC campus police had Mandatory Reporter Duty to place Holmes on 72 hour hold,

    http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/mental-health-professionals-duty-to-warn.aspx

    AND to report to the Boulder PD, where from their website its not clear if the PD also had jurisdiction on campus,

    who would have had the need to know, and the same Mandatory Reporter responsibility to execute a 72 hour hold on their own if Holmes lived in the area surrounding the campus.

    http://www.ucdenver.edu/ABOUT/DEPARTMENTS/UNIVERSITYPOLICE/Pages/UniversityPolice.aspx

    The University screwed up and its no wonder the university and Dr Fenton are lawyering up and hiding evidence, citing patient confidentiality, HIPAA, blah blah blah,

    as they know they are in deep kimchee from civil lawsuits.
    If its proven they conspired to hide or destroy evidence, its going to add criminal charges.

    Faster, please.

    • More on who is a mandatory reporter- most of these rules evolved from situations involving minors, then the elderly, but also apply to the mentally ill, who may be judged to be a threat to themselves or others.

      Thats the gray area here- and of course, the need for more training by various LEAs, as in the Elliot Rodgers case.

      http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CDHS-Main/CBON/1251651932321

      I remember clearly the pleas from callers and posters in the KPBS forum, in the debate that RF participated in with Assymn Skinner of Santa Barbara, CA, post Isla Harbor tragedy,

      by the many callers identifying themselves as social workers and mental health professionals, asking for more clarity and support to the complicated issues, and for more training to identify dangerous threats like James Holmes and Elliot Rodgers sooner.

      In the bio posted for Assemblywoman Skinner, she claimed to have been working on a mental health solution prior to Elliot Rodgers, but if true the bill was converted to the infamous GVRO by grandstanding Dems in Sacramento instead. Still no help to mental health practioners, or training to LEOs in CA, as far as I can tell.

      The real tragedy is the gun-grabbers focus on the tool rather than the person using it, is a deliberate deception, in order to establish a top-down solution for glory to the Democrats.

      This only puts more vulnerable people at risk, in favor of the political solution rather than the mental health solution. But, of course, the progressive press wont take the time, or divulge that inconvenient truth, for it might get in the way of the Narrative, I suppose.

  20. When will someone file a lawsuit against the Theater? They willfully requested that patrons disarmed themselves. This created an environment that brings Cinemark into the responsibility of protecting them.

Comments are closed.