Canada Kicks Ass
Las Vegas shooting victims facing large medical bills

REPLY

Previous  1  2



DrCaleb @ Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:15 am

herbie herbie:
$1:
ER medicine has learnt a lot from Iraq and Afghanistan.

You mean the other way around. The Army learned from the inner city ERs.... :evil:


Nope.

$1:
Whatever the geopolitical implications of the Iraq and
Afghanistan wars may be, and despite their horrific costs in
lives, limbs and dollars, the conflicts hold 2 undeniable and
positive truths for emergency physicians:

Emergency medicine has benefited from the American war
effort, and the victims of those war-torn regions have benefited
from emergency medicine.


http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(07)00215-6/pdf

   



BartSimpson @ Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:37 am

Someone in the media is trying to push the single-payer, socialized medicine narrative at the expense of these victims. Which is totally fucking despicable.

Skipping the parts of Federal law that cover trauma care let's get right down to the brass tacks here:

Between MGM (which owns some $100 billion in Las Vegas real estate inclusive of the Mandalay Bay) and the insurance company for the Route 91 Festival these people will have their bills taken care of and then some.

The only question these folks will have is how much compensation they're willing to settle for AFTER MGM et al pay for their bills?

   



xerxes @ Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:20 am

I still don’t see why MGM would be legally liable in this case. Yeah a hotel is liable for shit happens on their premises but I don’t see how they could be held liable for a guy bringing a dozen guns with him and opening fire from his room.

   



BartSimpson @ Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:37 am

xerxes xerxes:
I still don’t see why MGM would be legally liable in this case. Yeah a hotel is liable for shit happens on their premises but I don’t see how they could be held liable for a guy bringing a dozen guns with him and opening fire from his room.


MGM is legally liable because the shooter killed fifty-eight people from their property.

That simple.

   



Strutz @ Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:48 am

BartSimpson BartSimpson:
xerxes xerxes:
I still don’t see why MGM would be legally liable in this case. Yeah a hotel is liable for shit happens on their premises but I don’t see how they could be held liable for a guy bringing a dozen guns with him and opening fire from his room.


MGM is legally liable because the shooter killed fifty-eight people from their property.

That simple.

If that is the case then I'm thinking that this could lead to hotels implementing a policy of baggage inspections of their incoming guests to ensure no one checks in with an arsenal of weapons. That would be quite the process considering while people are staying at a hotel they could come and go and bring weapons in at any time. How could a hotel monitor this?

   



DrCaleb @ Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:50 am

BartSimpson BartSimpson:
xerxes xerxes:
I still don’t see why MGM would be legally liable in this case. Yeah a hotel is liable for shit happens on their premises but I don’t see how they could be held liable for a guy bringing a dozen guns with him and opening fire from his room.


MGM is legally liable because the shooter killed fifty-eight people from their property.

That simple.


Civil liability is not the same as criminal liability. All the victims have to prove is that MGM had the opportunity to stop the guy, and didn't.

Then MGM will pay. That's why they have insurance for this stuff.

   



BartSimpson @ Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:57 am

DrCaleb DrCaleb:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
xerxes xerxes:
I still don’t see why MGM would be legally liable in this case. Yeah a hotel is liable for shit happens on their premises but I don’t see how they could be held liable for a guy bringing a dozen guns with him and opening fire from his room.


MGM is legally liable because the shooter killed fifty-eight people from their property.

That simple.


Civil liability is not the same as criminal liability. All the victims have to prove is that MGM had the opportunity to stop the guy, and didn't.

Then MGM will pay. That's why they have insurance for this stuff.


I never said they were criminally liable, just legally liable.

And you're right; they will pay. I'm sure their lawyers are hard at work on settling this right now.

   



martin14 @ Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:22 pm

Strutz Strutz:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
xerxes xerxes:
I still don’t see why MGM would be legally liable in this case. Yeah a hotel is liable for shit happens on their premises but I don’t see how they could be held liable for a guy bringing a dozen guns with him and opening fire from his room.


MGM is legally liable because the shooter killed fifty-eight people from their property.

That simple.

If that is the case then I'm thinking that this could lead to hotels implementing a policy of baggage inspections of their incoming guests to ensure no one checks in with an arsenal of weapons. That would be quite the process considering while people are staying at a hotel they could come and go and bring weapons in at any time. How could a hotel monitor this?


Funny, one conspiracy nutter mentioned exactly that, this attack is a false flag
in order to force every hotel in America to have metal detectors and inspections.

That's a lot of money for the companies that make the equipment.

The nutter seems to think Michael Chertoff of Homeland Security fame
is in on the action.

   



BartSimpson @ Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:56 pm

Conspiracy nutters say lots of things.

But sometimes at least some of what they say is right so when I hear them I set my biases aside for a moment, give them their say, and then I evaluate it for myself.

I'm sure Edward Snowden would have been dismissed as a total conspiracy nut were it not for the fact that he backed up his crazy, wild assertions with undeniable evidence. :idea:

That said, don't dismiss 'crazy talk' as a knee jerk reaction. It might be important to listen.

Like I'm sure the first people at the Route 91 Festival who noticed gunfire and people getting shot were instantly dismissed by others for their 'crazy talk'. :idea:

   



Strutz @ Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:16 pm

martin14 martin14:
Strutz Strutz:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:


MGM is legally liable because the shooter killed fifty-eight people from their property.

That simple.

If that is the case then I'm thinking that this could lead to hotels implementing a policy of baggage inspections of their incoming guests to ensure no one checks in with an arsenal of weapons. That would be quite the process considering while people are staying at a hotel they could come and go and bring weapons in at any time. How could a hotel monitor this?


Funny, one conspiracy nutter mentioned exactly that, this attack is a false flag
in order to force every hotel in America to have metal detectors and inspections.

That's a lot of money for the companies that make the equipment.

The nutter seems to think Michael Chertoff of Homeland Security fame
is in on the action.

A false flag? Holy crap 8O I would ask how the hell someone could think that but with all the crazy shit people make up in their heads I guess it's no surprise. Like Bart said sometimes there's something to it but I would not like to believe that an event like this could have an ulterior motive behind it.
I was responding to what Bart suggested about the hotel being liable due to what is brought onto their property. How else could the hotel protect itself other than inspecting guest's luggage?

   



BartSimpson @ Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:33 pm

Strutz Strutz:
I was responding to what Bart suggested about the hotel being liable due to what is brought onto their property. How else could the hotel protect itself other than inspecting guest's luggage?


The hotel is not liable for legal items brought onto their property and they're also not liable for illegal items brought onto their property without their knowledge.

But...they do have liabilities for what happens on their property.

The inevitable court case will hinge on the fact that the hotel is liable for the safety of their guests so are they also liable for the actions of their guests?

I suspect that MGM will face some level of responsibility here. It seems improbable that they won't.

   



BRAH @ Sun Oct 08, 2017 4:49 pm

BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Strutz Strutz:
I was responding to what Bart suggested about the hotel being liable due to what is brought onto their property. How else could the hotel protect itself other than inspecting guest's luggage?


The hotel is not liable for legal items brought onto their property and they're also not liable for illegal items brought onto their property without their knowledge.

But...they do have liabilities for what happens on their property.

The inevitable court case will hinge on the fact that the hotel is liable for the safety of their guests so are they also liable for the actions of their guests?

I suspect that MGM will face some level of responsibility here. It seems improbable that they won't.

MGM might agree to cover medical costs of the victims who can't cover their own and maybe funeral costs of the victims, the survivors could end up suing MGM for emotional stress with claims of PTSD.

   



REPLY

Previous  1  2